DATE OF FILING : 25.08.2014.
DATE OF S/R : 26.09.2014.
DATE OF FINAL ORDER : 08.09.2015.
Smt. Sunita Ghosh,
wife of Tapan Kumar Ghosh,
residing at 13/6, Khagendranath Ganguly Lane, P.S. Golabari,
District Howrah.................................................. COMPLAINANT.
Versus -
1. Gayetri Paul,
w/o. Shankar Kumar Pal.
2. Jhunu Paul,
d/o. late Shankar Kumar Paul.
3. Chanda Paul,
d/o. late Shankar Kumar Paul.
4. Amit Paul,
s/o. late Shankar Kumar Paul,
all of 84A & 84B/1, Kshetra Mitra Lane, 1st floor, Salkia, P.S. Golabari,
District Howrah,
PIN 711106.
5. Rajiv Mishra,
son of Sri Bhubaneshwar Mishra
of 56/1/1, Kings Road, Salkia, P.S. Golabari,
District Howrah,
PIN 711106. ….….….….….….….….….….….….…..OPPOSITE PARTIES.
P R E S E N T
Hon’ble President : Shri B. D. Nanda, M.A. ( double ), L.L.M., WBHJS.
Hon’ble Member : Smt. Jhumki Saha.
Hon’ble Member : Shri A.K. Pathak.
F I N A L O R D E R
1. Complainant, Sunita Ghosh, by filing a petition U/S 12 of the C .P. Act, 1986 ( as amended up to date ) has prayed for a direction to be given upon the o.ps. to register the deed of conveyance in favour of the complainant, to pay Rs. 3,00,000/- as compensation along with other relief or reliefs as the Forum may deem fit and proper.
2. Brief fact of the case is that complainant entered into an agreement for sale with O.P. 5 on 10/05/2001 for purchasing a shop room cum- karkhana measuring about 261 Sq. ft. including super built up area on the ground floor of the newly constructed building situated at (84A plus 84B)/1, Kshetra Mitra Lane, Salkia, Howrah 711 106 on payment of Rs. 1,40,000 in cash out of total consideration amount of Rs. 6,26,400. Further in due course, complainant paid Rs. 5,53,999 in total till 09/05/2002. And she was given the possession of the said shop room on 06/05/2002, Where she runs one fast-food centre under the certificate No.71, Book No.49, Order No.24726 provided by Howrah Municipal Corporation. O.P.5 erected that the said building by virtue of a Development agreement dt.15/01/2001 entered between Shankar Kumar Pal, since deceased and O.P.5. And after death of the said Shankar Kumar Pal, O.P.s 1 to 4 have become the legal heirs. Accordingly, the power of attorney dt. 15/01/2001 giving by late Shankar Kumar Pal in favour of O.,P.5, became null and void. So, even after handing over the possession, the sale deed could not be executed and registered by O.P.5 in favour of the complainant. Complainant repeatedly requested the O.P.s 1 to 4 to do the same. But they did not pay any heed to that request which caused severe mental and financial problem to the complainant as the cost of registration is increasing by leaps and bounds. Also it is stated by the complainant that as the shop room is not registered, she could not avail herself of any registered loan facility. Being frustrated and finding no other alternative, complainant filed this instant petition praying for the aforesaid relief.
3. Notices were served upon O.P.s. O.P.s appeared and filed W/V. Accordingly, the case was heard on contest.
4. 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 Reason
We have carefully gone through the W/Vs of the O.P.s and noted their contents It is the specific plea of the O.P. no. 5 that as O.Ps. 1 to 4 are not willing to put their signature in the Sale deed, O.p. 5 could not execute and register the same in favour of the complainant and he is always ready and willing to do the same on receipt of the balance amount as per the agreement dt. 10/05/2001. Even O.P.5 demanded the present market value of the shop room from the complainant in para 3 of his W/V. It is surprising enough that even after receiving the major portion being Rs. 5,33,999 out of total consideration amount of Rs. 6,26,4000 for the shop-room from the complainant, O.P.5 failed to the execute and register the sale deed in favour of the complainant and now he is demanding the present market value It is to be kept in mind that the complainant purchased the said shop-room from the developers allocation. So, it was the sole responsibility of o.p. no. 5 to take necessary steps with the legal heirs, being O.P.s 1 to 4, of late Shankar Pal in order to execute and register the sale deed. O.P.5 took the entire amount of Rs. 5,33,999 and now he is asking the complainant to request O.Ps. 1 to 4 to put their signature in the sale deed what kind of an irresponsible person O.P.5 is? However, O.P.s 1 to 4 have a plea that in the agreement dt.10/05/2001, there is no signature of late Shankar Pal. Accordingly, they, being the legal heirs, are not responsible to put their signatures in the Sale Deed to be executed in favour of the complainant. It is required to be kept in mind by the O.P.s 1 to 4, that they have stepped into the sue as the legal heirs after demise of the said Shankar Pal, when they would enjoy the property of Shankar Pal, since deceased, certainly they are to shoulder the liability of Shankar Pal. O.P. 5 entered into the agreement with the complainant on 10/05/2001 by the strength of the Agreement dt. 15/01/2001 entered by and between O.P.5 and late Shankar Pal. So, all the O.P.s are equally under legal obligation to execute and register the sale deed in favour of the complainant. But they neglected to do the same which really caused mental and physical harassment as well as financial loss to the complainant for no fault on her part which should not be allowed to be perpetuated, Accordingly, we are of the candid opinion that it is a fit case where the prayers of the complainant should be allowed. Both the points are taken up together for consideration. Points under consideration are accordingly decided.
Hence,
O R D E R E D
That the HDF Case no. 468 of 2014 ( CC Case no. 468 of 2014 ) is allowed on contest against the O.Ps. with cost.
That the O.Ps. are jointly and severally directed to execute and register the Sale Deed in favour of the complainant within one month from the date of this order id Rs 50per day shall be imposed upon each of the O.Ps. till actual registration.
Complainant to pay the balance consideration amount, being Rs 72,400, to the O.P.5 at the time of registration. Complainant is to bear the cost of registration .
The O.Ps. are jointly and severally further directed to pay Rs. 25,000 as compensation and Rs5000 as litigation cost to the complainant within one month i.d., the entire amount of Rs. 30,000/- shall carry interest @ 9% p.a. till actual payment.
Supply the copy of the order to the parties, free of costs
DICTATED & CORRECTED
BY ME.
( Jhumki Saha)
Member, C.D.R.F., Howrah.
