DATE OF FILING                    :     01-10-2013.

DATE OF S/R                            :      13-12-2013.

DATE OF FINAL ORDER      :     30-07-2014.

Smt. Shampa Koley,

w/o. Sri Ashim Koley,

2/2/1, balai Mistry Lane, P.S. Shibpur,

District – Howrah,

presently residing at ground floor, 17/2, Onkar Mail Jetia Road,

P.S. Shibpur, District – Howrah,

PIN – 711103.------------------------------------------------------------- COMPLAINANT.

-          Versus   -

1.         Debashis  Roy,

2.         Abhishek Roy,

both sons of late Gour  Chandra Roy.

3.         Smt. Mira  Roy,

w/o. late Gour  Chandra Roy,

4.         Mamata Roy,

daughter of late Gour  Chandra Roy,

all of  17/2, Onkar Mall Jetia Road, P.S. Shibpur,

District – Howrah,

PIN  – 711103.-----------------------------------------------------OPPOSITE PARTIES.

                                                P    R    E     S    E    N     T

President     :     Shri T.K. Bhattacharya, M.A. LL.B. WBHJS.

Member      :      Shri P.K. Chatterjee.

Member       :     Smt. Jhumki Saha.

                                                 F  I   N   A    L       O   R   D    E     R

1.               The instant case was filed by complainant U/S 12 of the C.P. Act, 1986 wherein the complainant has prayed for direction upon the o.ps. to execute and register the sale deed in favour of the complainant in respect of the suit  property and to pay compensation of Rs. 1 lac together with litigation cost of Rs. 30,000/-  as the o.ps. in spite of receiving Rs. 57,000/- as advance out of total consideration of  Rs. 1 lac vide agreement dated 21-02-2006 in respect of a room measuring 120 sq. ft.  together with attached bath as mentioned  in the schedule of the petition, did not ultimately execute the same in spite of repeated reminders.   

2.               In the written version the o.ps.  contended interalia that the complainant  is very much in possession of the suit room; that the agreement is not valid as it was on a stamp paper of valuing Rs. 10/- only. So the complaint should be dismissed.

3.        Upon pleadings of both parties two points arose for determination :

i)          Is there any deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps.  ?

ii)                  Whether the complainant is  entitled to get any relief as prayed for ? 

DECISION  WITH   REASONS      :

4.               Both the points are  taken up together for consideration. On scrutiny of agreement it is palpable that the o.p. received Rs. 57,000/- as advance for sale of the suit room measuring 120 sq. ft. in the ground floor on  HMC holding no. 17/2, Onkarmal Jetia  Road.  The total amount agreed upon is Rs. 1 lakh. Whenever the complainant approached the o.p. he refused to accept the balance money and did not execute the sale deed.

5.               The o.ps.  entered appearance and filed written version ; they cannot have any escape from rigours of law. Both the points are accordingly disposed of.

      Hence,

O     R     D      E      R      E        D

      That the C. C. Case No.348  of 2013 ( HDF 348 of 2013 )  be  and the same is allowed on contest with  costs  as against  the O.Ps. 

      The O.Ps. be directed to execute and register the deed of conveyance with respect to the suit room in favour of the complainant   within 30 days from the date of this order after receiving the balance amount as per agreement.

      The o.ps. do also pay a sum of Rs. 10,000/- as compensation to the complainant  for causing mental pain and prolonged harassment and Rs. 5,000/- as litigation costs.

            The complainant is at liberty to put the decree into execution after expiry of the appeal period.

      Supply the copies of the order to the parties, as per rule.

DICTATED  &    CORRECTED

BY   ME.  

  (    T.K. Bhattacharya  )                                              

  President,  C.D.R.F.,Howrah.