The complainant in brief is that the complainant wanted to purchase a plot of land. He was in search of a plot of land. Ops published an odd to a news paper and the complainant offered to the ops by knowing the said publication and the ops came to an agreement with the complainant. Later a sale deed was registered between the complainant and ops. The complainant paid the total consideration, registration fee and their charges.
After receiving the sale deed the complainant discovered several contractions between the agreement and the sale deed. The complainant contact with ops but his problem remains unsolved.
The complainant has filed the following documents
- Deed of agreement dated. 22.05.2016.
- Installment payment receipts.
- Deed of conveyance dated 12.07.2014.
- Legal notice dated 09.09.2014.
- Letter of Uday Sarkar dated 28.03.2014.
Points for decision.
- Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the ops?
- Whether the complainant is entitled to get the relief as prayed for?
Decision with reason.
All the issues are taken up together for the brevity and convenience of discussion.
The deed of agreement is made on 22.05.2012 between J.A. conclaves India (p) Ltd. And Biswadeep Ghosh where the points are that as preferred by the second party, the first party will transfer the plot of land under phase no.II(two) of Sarada Abasan vide plot No.A-1/164,measuring areas about 2.5 kathhas or 1800 sq, ft in total at mouza Sanyasikata J.L. no.27, R.S. khatian no.1083,sheet no 09,r.s. plot no.252,under p.s.-Rajganj,dist-Jalpaiguri, in favor of the 2nd party.
That the 1st party at their own cost and labour shall develop and complete the following development works within 24 months.
As per this notarial agreement those installment payment and money receipt against booking amount might be done. This notarial agreement and the letter dated 28.03.2014 and those receipts shows that a process was going on. But on this agreement no address is mentioned by J.A. conclave India (P) Ltd. And the letter dated 28.03.2014 does not carry and stamp or seal of J.A. conclave India(p) Ltd.
The other part is that the deed of Conveyance registered on 12.06.2014 at additional dist-,Sub-Register, Rajganj, jalpaiguri between Biswadeep Ghosh and Jitendra Nath sarkar of vacant(Bastu) land measuring 3 kathas, recorded in khaitan no.261 ,sheet no,6 in part of R.s. plot no.1183,situated within Pargana Baikunthapur Mouza Sannyasikata, J.L. no.27, P.S.-Bhaktinagar.
This deed does not support any blue print or sketch map of the registered land. We cannot find any connection between these two works of agreement and registered deed, these are two separate works. Record shows that the complainant did not adduce any evidence only produced some documents.
Hence, we are of the opinion that the complainant is failed to prove the case ex-party.
There for after deliberation over the documents produced before us we are of opinion that material on record failed to inspire confidence to hold that the complainant has succeeded to prove this case. Accordingly it is ordered that the case be and the same is dismissed ex-party.
