Andhra Pradesh

Nellore

CC/51/2014

Nellore Ravindra reddy - Complainant(s)

Versus

Mamidi Durgaprasad reddy - Opp.Party(s)

V.Chandrasekharreddy

31 Aug 2015

ORDER

                                          Date of filing       :  17-07-2014

                                          Date of disposal  :   31-08-2015

 

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

           :: NELLORE ::

                                                       

Monday, this the 31st day of AUGUST, 2015.

 

          PRESENT:  Sri M.Subbarayudu Naidu, B.Com.,B.L., LL.M.        

                                      President(FAC)& Member

                                      Sri N.S.Kumara Swamy, B.Sc., LL.B., Member

                              

                                          C.C.No.51/2014

Nellore Ravindra Reddy,

S/o.Ramana Reddy,

Hindu, aged 60 years,

Resident of 16-3-228,

Ramalingapuram,

Nellore Town.                                                         …         Complainant

 

 

                      Vs.

                                                                            

1. Mamidi Durgaprasad Reddy,

S/o.late Subba Reddy,

20-1-167, Opp. Venkayya Swamy Ashramam,

Brahmin Street, (Bondili Street)

Mulapet, Nellore-3.

 

2. Budigi Subbamma
3. Budigi Subbareddy
4. Bydugu Ramanareddy

 

Wife and sons of late Peda Subba Reddy

Kondlapudi Village H/oDevarapalem

Nellore Rural Mandal.                                   …            Opposite parties

 

This matter coming on 27-08-2015  before us for final hearing in the presence of Sri V.Chandrasekhar Reddy, Advocate for the complainant and  Sri N.Sudheer Reddy, Advocate for the  opposite parties and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Forum passed the following:                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                          

ORDER                                                                                                                                                                                                                          (BY SRI M.SUBBARAYUDU NAIDU, PRESIDENT (FAC) ON BEHALF OF THE BENCH)

 

    This Consumer case is filed by the complainant against the opposite parties 1 to 4 to direct them to provide (a) amenities as mentioned in brochure i.e., Pollution free environment; (b) 100% Vasthu; ( c ) B.T.Roads; (d) 100% genuine legal documentation and  (e) the entire layout will be provided with a compound wall and (f) the basic amenities like water, electricity etc to the plot purchased by the complainant in the said layout or he may be directed to pay damages and compensation of Rs.15,00,000/- to grant costs of the complaint and pass such other relief or reliefs as the Hon’ble Forum may be pleased to deemed it fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.

 

 

The factual matrix leading to filing of this consumer case is as stated as hereunder:

 

I(a)It is the case of the complainant that the 1^st opposite party had laid out house plots in an extent of Ac.3-76 cents in Sy.No.19 and 20 of Kondlapudi Village, Devarapalem Gram Panchayat, Nellore Rural Mandal, which land belongs to the opposite parties 2 to 4.  The 1^st opposite party, on his behalf and on behalf of the opposite parties 2 to 4 has offered to sell the house plots to others including the complainant.  The said layout was called as “Prasad Reddy Nagar”. The complainant has agreed to purchase one plot bearing No.33 for Rs.23,500/- per each ankanam. The 1^st opposite party got executed an agreement of sale dated 18-04-2011 in favour of the complainant and others namely Yeturu Subbarami Reddy and Kandikattu Ramaiah and others, separately, for the respective plots purchased by them, by receiving advance of sale consideration.  The 1^st opposite party has also supplied a broacher in which he has stated that he will provide 1) Pollution free environment 2) 100% Vasthu 3) B.T.Roads 4) 100% Genuine legal documentation 5) The entire layout will be provided with a compound wall 6) The basic communities like water, electricity etc. to the purchasers who purchased a house plot in the said layout. 

(b) It is also further submitted by the complainant that in para-4 of his complaint that as per the terms of the said agreement of sale the 1^st opposite party got executed a registered sale deed in favour of the complainant on       12-05-2011 which is duly registered at S.R.O. Buja Buja Nellore under document No.2819/2011 and delivered possession of the said plot to the complainant so purchased by him.  But, so for the opposite parties have not taken any steps to provide the amenities as mentioned in the brochure.  In view of non-providing the basic needs as promised by them, the value of the said land is being decreased.  In fact the complainant has purchased the plot at the rate of Rs.23,500/- per each ankanam, though the value of the entire plot is mentioned Rs.1,30,000/- and so as per the market value mentioned in the basic registers.  The 1^st opposite party got executed the registered sale deed dated  12-05-2011 in favour of the complainant through the original owners of the land in Sy.No.19 and 20 of Kondlapudi Village who are the  opposite parties 2 to 4. Thus, there is clear deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties in not providing the basic amenities  to the complainant as promised by them.

( c ) It is also further submitted by the complainant that in para-5 of his complaint that he got issued a legal notice dt.16-06-2014 to the 1^st opposite party calling upon him to provide the amenities as mentioned in the broachure within one week of the receipt the notice, failing which my client will be constrained to take appropriate legal action by filing a complainant before the Consumer Forum, Nellore for the said reliefs and also claim damages and compensation of Rs.5,00,000/-.  The 1^st opposite party herein received the said notice and sent a reply with false and untenable allegations stating the complainant herein borrowed a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- from him and as he demanded for repayment of the said amount this false notice is issued.  He has further contended that he is not the owner of the said property and that he has not executed the sale deed in favour of the complainant.  But admitted that the broacher was published in his name.  As the 1^st opposite party failed to comply the demand, the complainant is constrained to file this complaint.  As the amount of Rs.5,00,000/- for damages and compensation claimed in the notice is very low and hence the said damages is claimed at Rs.15,00,000/- in this complaint.

 

(d)  It is also further submitted by the complainant that in paras-6 and 7 of his complaint that a registered sale deed was executed through the opposite parties 2 to 4 being the landowners and they are also shown as opposite parties in this case and are liable to complying reliefs as prayed for along with the 1^st opposite party.  The complainant is a consumer within the meaning of the Act and there is a clear deficiency in the service on the part of the opposite parties.

 

(e)  There are causes of action which are narrated in para-8 of complaint.

(f)    It is also prayed that Hon’ble Forum may be pleased to direct the opposite parties to provide the reliefs as mentioned in para – 9 of complaint of the complainant.  Hence, the complaint.

 

II.  DEFENCE: Contents of Written Version of 1^st opposite party

      The 1^st opposite party was resisted the complaint by denying the allegations of the complainant made in the complaint and further alleged that the contents are contained of the complaint are totally false except legal notice dated 16-06-2014 issued to him by the complainant.

 

(ii) It is also further submitted by the 1^st opposite party in para 6 of his written version that the 1^st opposite party is only developer to the opposite parties 2 to 4 and he was laid the roads in accordance with 2 to 4 opposite parties and lay out as specified on the broacher.  Since, the panchayat has not provided drinking water facility in the layout, the 1^st opposite party is only developer to the opposite parties 2 to 4 and he was laid the roads in accordance with 2 to 4  opposite parties and lay out as specified in the broacher  since, the panchayat has not provided drinking water facility in the layout, the 1^st opposite party could not able to give water connection as none is constructed any house in the schedule mentioned plot sold by the opposite parties 2 to 4.  The 1^st opposite party had purchased plot from the opposite parties 2 to 4 under an agreement of sale after verification of the documents of them (opposite parties 2 to 4).  There are no terms and conditions in the agreement of sale that the opposite parties 2 to 4 shall provide all amenities to the complainant.

 

(iii) It is also further submitted by the 1^st opposite party that paras 7 to 10 that the complainant did not construct any house in the schedule mentioned site as such no water connection had given by the panchayat to the layout.  It is also further contended by 1^st opposite party that no electrical line is laid in the schedule mentioned plot of the complainant as no house was constructed in the lay out.  The 1^st opposite party had subsequently quit from the work spot.  He is no way concerned to the complainant and the complainant himself intended to purchase house plot for him and the 1^st opposite party accepted for the proposal of the complainant and nothing otherwise.  The  complainant had a malicious intention to file this complaint as there are no terms and conditions as per the agreement of the sale or registered sale executed by the opposite parties 2 to 4.  The complainant had preoccupied mind, without constructing any building in the schedule mentioned plot and filed this vexatious complaint.

 

(iv)  It is also further submitted by the 1^st opposite party in paras 10 and 11 of his written version that the complainant is not a consumer and after execution of registered sale deed in favour of him, the right to demand or questioning of layout does not arise.  The complainant after due verification of the documents had purchased the plot voluntarily and there was no demand, force or coercion by the opposite parties 1 to 4.  It is also further contended by the 1^st opposite party that the real estate business is steeply fallen down and the complainant had requested the amount by sell of the plot to third parties.  The 1^st opposite party had tried his level best for sale of the property and he is not in a position to sell the property.  The complainant had taken an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- from the 1^st opposite party and executed a receipt in favour of 1^st opposite party and on demand the same to return the said amount, the complainant had added the 1^st opposite party in the complaint and filed against the 1^st opposite party.  In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, the opposite parties 1 to 4 are prayed the Hon’ble Consumer Forum may be pleased to dismiss the complaint with costs as there is no cause of action against them.

 

 

 

 

III.  The complainant has filed his affidavit as evidence on 6-7-2015 and also filed the documents  which are marked as Exs.A1 to A5.  There are no documents filed on behalf of the opposite parties. Except 1^st opposite party, the other opposite parties 2 to 4 are not filed any statement or written version to contest the case by denying the allegations of the complainant.  The 1^st opposite party has filed his chief-affidavit as evidence on 2-4-2015.  Both the complainant and 1^st opposite party have filed their written arguments on       27-07-2015 and 12-08-2015 respectively.

 

 IV.   Basing on the material available on the record, the points that arise for determination are namely:-

 

(a)Is there any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite

    parties towards the complainant?

(b)Whether the complainant is entitled to get the reliefs as

    prayed for, if it is so, to what extent?

                   (c) To what relief?

 

V.  POINTS 1 AND 2 :

 

     In view of these two points are inter-related and depends on each other, they have been taken up together for discussion and determination of the case.  The basic facts of it, is not disputed.  The complainant and 1^st opposite party have filed their affidavit evidence reiterating the averments in the complaint and the written version

 

Oral arguments are advanced by the learned counsel for the complainant:

 

          The learned counsel for the complainant Sri Venati Chnadrasekhar Reddy has vehemently argued that the complaint, an affidavit and his written arguments are may be read as part and parcel of his oral arguments of the case.  At first instance, the said learned counsel for the complainant has further argued that in detail the facts of the case, are that the 1^st opposite party laid out house plots in an extent of  Ac.3-76 cents in Sy.No.19 and 20 of Kondlapudi village,  Devarapalem Gram Panchayat, Nellore Rural Mandal, which land belongs to the opposite parties 2 to 4 herein.  The 1^st opposite party, on his behalf and on behalf opposite parties 2 to 4 has offered to sell the house plots to others including myself.  The said layout was called as “Prasad Reddy Nagar”.  The complainant herein agreed to purchase one plot bearing No.33 for Rs.23,500/- per each ankanam.  The 1^st opposite party herein got executed an agreement of sale dated 18-04-2011 in his favour and in favour of others  namely Yeturu Subbarami Reddy and Kandikattu Ramaiah, separately for the respective plots purchased by them, by receiving advance of sale  consideration.  The 1^st opposite party has also supplied a broacher in which he has stated that he will provide 1) Pollution free environment 2) 100% Vasthu 3) B.T.Roads 4) 100% Genuine legal documentation 5) The entire layout will be provided with a compound wall 6) The basic communities like water, electricity etc. to the purchasers who purchased a house plot in the said lay out.

 

     The said learned counsel for the complainant has also further contended that as per the terms of the said agreement of sale, the 1^st opposite party got executed a registered sale deed in his favour on 12-05-2011 through the opposite parties 2 to 4 who are the original owners of the land, which was duly registered at SRO Buja Buja Nellore under document No.2819/2011 and delivered possession of the said plot to him.  But so for the opposite parties have not taken any steps to provide  the amenities as mentioned in the brochure.  In view of non-providing the basic needs as promised by them, the value of the said land is being decreased, although the value of the entire plot is mentioned Rs.1,30,000/- and odd as per the market value mentioned in the basic register.  The 1^st opposite party got executed the registered sale deed in favour of the complainant through the original owners of the land in Sy.No.19 and 20 of Kondlapudi Village, who are the opposite parties 2 to 4 herein.  Thus there is clear deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties in not providing the basic amenities to the complainant as promised by them.  He has again urged that the complainant got issued a legal notice dt.16-06-2014 to the 1^st opposite party calling upon him to provide amenities as mentioned in the brochure.  He has also again further contended that the Panchayat did not provided drinking water facility in the layout.  This 1^st opposite party could not able to give water connection as none of the purchasers have constructed the houses in the schedule mentioned plots sold by the opposite parties 2 to 4.  1^st opposite party is only a developer and not the owner of the property he cannot say that he could not able to give water connection.  First of all, he has to get the water connection to the layout and then only the persons who construct the buildings can get the connection for their individual houses.  Further, it is not the case of the complainant that the sellers have no title to the said property.  The sale agreement and the sale deed is in respect of the land but not for amenities to be provided to the purchasers as promised by the 1^st opposite party.  It is an admitted fact that no water supply is given or electricity line was provided.  The 1^st opposite party is silent about formation of compound wall to the entire layout.  As the 1^st opposite party had failed to provide basic necessities as promised by him and failed to comply the demand, the complainant is constrained to file his complaint.  As the amount of Rs.5,00,000/- for damages and compensation claimed in the notice is very low, the complainant is advised to claim enhanced compensation amount under the said head and hence he claimed the said  damages for the enhanced amount of Rs.15,00,000/-.  As the registered sale deed was executed through the opposite parties 2 to 4 being the land owners,  they are also shown as opposite parties in this case and  they are also liable  to comply the reliefs as prayed for along with the 1^st opposite party.  Hence, the Hon’ble Forum may be pleased to allow the complaint with costs.

 

  The case-law applicable to the facts of the case are cited by the said learned counsel for the complainant and relied upon them to support his case:-.

   He has placed a reliance on the decisions of our Hon’ble National Commission which are reported in 2012(3) CPR 5(NC); 2012(3) CPR 401 (NC) and 2012(4) CPR 362 (NC).  The sum and substance of those decisions are that namely (a) cause of action arises only after getting possession of plot; (b) unscrupulous builders should be dealt with heavy hands and (c) non-providing of facilities constitutes continuous cause of action.  In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, the said learned counsel for the complainant has prayed that the complaint may be allowed with costs.

 

Oral arguments are advanced by the learned counsel of the opposite parties:

    On the other hand Sri N.Sudheer Reddy, the learned counsel for the opposite parties, has also vehemently argued that the written version, an affidavit and his written arguments of the case may be read as part and parcel of his oral arguments.  During his oral arguments, the said learned counsel for the opposite parties has further argued that 1^st opposite party has no relation with the complainant.  The 1^st opposite party is also one of the intending purchasers of the plots laid by the 2^nd and 3^rd opposite parties.  There is no relation at all in development of the plots and lay out and construction of compound wall and provide the basic amenities to the complainant. The relation is with 2^nd to 4^th opposite parties and 1^st opposite party alone.  Since there is no relation in developmental activities with the complainant the complaint itself is vexatious and pre matured one.  The complainant entered into agreement with the 1^st opposite party on agreement which was executed by the 2^nd to 4^th opposite parties in favour of 1^st opposite party.  Since the 1^st opposite party is a buyer of a plot from 2^nd to 4^th opposite parties and on that agreement the complainant entered into the agreement with the 1^st opposite party and got registered  the property from 2^nd to 4^th opposite parties, as such the question of providing amenities and other activities does not arise for the 2^nd buyer.  The complainant is a transparent buyer from the 2^nd to 4^th opposite parties and no relationship of consumer.  Here there is no relation of consumer and deficiency of service in the second agreement of sale and agreement of sale with respect of payment of advance to the 1^st opposite party is only one lakh as per the agreement and the same is paid to the owners i.e., 2^nd to 4^th opposite parties and the 2^nd to 4^th opposite parties received an amount of Rs.30,000/- on 12-5-2011 and got registered the property in the name of complainant.  When once the regular registered sale deed came into existence,  the agreements executed by the 2^nd to 4^th opposite parties and the 1^st opposite party are devalued and no sanctity in the eye of law. The service may arise  and not after execution of regular sale deed in favour of the complainant.

 

      The said learned counsel for the opposite parties has further contended that the broacher as alleged by the complainant is only after the entire layout occupied by the purchasers and if they may start any developmental work then only the provision of electricity, water lines and B T roads will arise instead the very vacant sites cannot be provided any facilities as it may cause hardship to the owner of the plots since there is no watch and ward to the facilities provided by the owner of the layout.  Knowing the fact well, that the complainant filed this complaint in premature without observing physical status of the plots.  The complainant may construct a house in the plot on application made by the complainant, the Panchayath will provide pipe line and then only the owners of the land shall provide with his own expenses to arrange the pipe line and accordingly electricity connection so also.  The B T roads without occupying the plots may lay, it will be damaged in day to day weather conditions and last intending purchaser may claim the damaged roads into regular roads.  As such the complaint itself is premature one and no reliance on their averments in the complaint.  He has also further urged that the rulings are quoted in the written arguments of the complainant are pending project but not on permanent sale deeds and further the judgments are all belongs to construction of house building and flats but not on vacant plots.  The complainant is not a installment buyer and after verifying all the documents and physical possession purchased a plot at a stretch but not pending fulfillments in the registered documents, as such the complaint is not maintainable and the judgments are no way connected to the present case.  Due to raise and fall of real estate transactions, the complainant invested the amount to get higher rates in future and unfortunately collapse of market trend none is coming forward to purchase the plots on investing the amounts far away from the town and the investment of Rs.1,30,000/- was kept idle since 2011 hatched a plan by filing this complaint to get realize  more money from the opposite parties and filed this complaint.  The complainant deposited the original documents in the financial institutions and got obtained a loan on the foot of the same.  The document itself is  a full-fledged document, accordingly the financial institutions arranged loan on the document.  As such there is no conditional sale of plot to the complainant.  Hence, the complaint is vexatious. The complainant has not filed original document before this Hon’ble Forum and filed only Photostat copy of the same.  The complainant did not disclose the fact of original document and its deposit at the time of filing of the complaint and the same was also suppressed. There is no conditional sale of plot to the complainant.    Finally, the said learned counsel for the opposite parties has categorically advanced his arguments by saying that there is no damage, is caused to the complainant as the plot is kept idle without any developmental work by the complainant and seeking further enhancement of Rs.15,00,000/- is to create terror in the mind of the opposite parties and filed this vexatious claim by approaching this Hon’ble Forum.  The complainant has mere believing the broachers and purchased the plots, is only an allegation and after verifying all the necessary documents from the authorities and also the ownership of the layout entered into agreement with the first opposite parties and got registered from second to fourth opposite parties.  The complaint is also barred by limitation.  There is no recital either in the agreement executed by 2^nd to 4^th opposite parties in favour of complainant and in regular registered sale deed that either the owner or the developer fulfils the conditions as mentioned in the complaint. Since no recital in the documents of fulfilling the conditions the question of execution of the condition does not arise. The complainant had suppressed the facts of recitals filed this complaint with assumptions and presumptions after lapse of time.  In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, he has prayed that the Hon’ble Consumer Forum may please to dismiss the complaint with costs.

 

Forum’s Findings and observations

     

    Heard, the said learned counsel for the parties and perused the record very carefully.  Parties led their evidence by way of affidavits.  The complainant has alone produced documentary evidence in support of his case. The subject matter of the case remained unresolved between the parties for one reason or the other.  One who seeks equity from the Forum must come with clean hands.  The complainant against deficiency in service is one of the crucial aspects of C.P.Act, 1986.  The Consumer Forum is primarily would function on the principles of natural justice, equity and good conscious.

 

    To appreciate the controversy of this Consumer dispute between the parties, it would be appropriate if we narrate all the circumstances of the case both on question of fact as well as question of law in detailed.

    

Relavant case – Law:  Apart from the rulings of our Hon’ble National Commission, New Delhi, which are cited by the said learned counsel for the complainant as above for applicability to the facts of the case, there is one more decision of our Hon’ble A.P.State Commission, Hyderabad is worthwhile to mention it in this context and cite it on the subject of housing construction to arrive at an appropriate decision on merits of the case on hand.  It is as follow as :-  The Hon’ble A.P.State Commission in a case between  Kiran Real Estates and constructions Vs.Nagalla Anand, Sai Sudhakr and another which is reported in the journals in (1999) CPJ 476 = 1999 ALD (cons), 103, held that “attempt to sell a plot in a land within  the purview of urban land development authority without getting the layout approved, amounts to deficiency in service and also unfair trade practice”.

 

2) Complaint is based on deficiency in service must establish the same by leading cogent evidence – 2011 (2) CPR 68 NC.

 

3) One who makes an allegations is required to prove it beyond doubt.

 

4)   Though flat or plot is ‘immovable property’ and is not ‘goods’ there can be deficiency in sale of flat (Plot) building.  Non-allotment of plot in time after receiving earnest money towards plot is deficiency in service.  Gulmarg welfare society Vs.Sudesh Dhaiya (1997)5 CTJ20 (NC). Interest for delay in allotment/possession: In view of inordinate delay in allotment of plot, National Commission had awarded interest from the date of deposit till delivery of plot.  This was upheld by SC – Harayna urban development Authority Vs.Rajnish Chandra Sharada –III 2000 CPJ 8 (SC 3 member bench)

 

Theory of doctrine of ownership:  About the value of the piece of land and theory of right to ownership and possession of the property and with regard to the doctrine of ownership that the owner is entitled to possess the things which he owns and has a right to use and enjoy the things he owns  has been replaced by the collectivist jurisprudence explained  by the Hon’ble Sri Justice P.A. Chowdhary of A.P.High Court  in the case of T.Damodhar Rao Vs. S.O.Municipal Corporation, Hyderabad, which is reported in AIR 1987 A.P.171.

 

   The builder or owners of the site (land) must put forth all the details of land particulars and permissions for it obtained from concerned revenue officials before selling the plots to the purchasers as the case may be.  The alleged broacher (Ex.A3) attracts the purchasers who are intending purchasing of plots from the persons responsible for it.  Not at all providing amenities to the plot owners by the promoters and other owners, irrespective of their promises, to the purchasers of the plots, amounts to unfair trade practice and deficiency in service.  The opposite parties have not filed any documents to show that permission obtained by them, to sell away the plots to the intending purchasers.  An adverse inference can be drawn in the circumstances of the case against the opposite parties.  It is the duty of the owners of the land to say that it is in all fit and proper to provide all amenities promised before sale of the plots to the purchasers, but that has not been fulfilled by them for the reasons best known to them, to put the purchasers of plots at their mercy and thereby causing much inconvenience and put to loss financially and put them in mental worry.  It is against law.  It is unjustified.  An adverse inference against a party is usually drawn during the course of trial, If he deliberately abstains from adducing better evidence, which is in a position to adduce.   It is easy to make allegations against a party, but to prove it by documentary evidence, is a difficult one. So, it has no value in the eye of law.   The promised basic amenities are not provided by the opposite parties to the complainant, deficiency in service alleged by him against the opposite parties.  It would have caused lot of mental strain, agony and sorrow in the family of the complainant which cannot be equated in terms of money.  This case is an instance of monumental inefficiency on the part of the opposite parties towards the complainant.   The equitable jurisdiction conferred on the Consumer Fora is to be exercised in just and equitable manner.    We feel that a token amount of Rs.2,00,000/- by way of compensation payable to the complainant by the opposite parties 1 to 4, it would meet the ends of justice.

 

  We have considered the rival submissions of the parties.  There is a force in the contentions advanced by the said learned counsel for the complainant.   We are convinced with his arguments and it is a fit case to award adequate compensation to the complainant.  This case is demonstrating highly unethical and unscrupulous conduct of the opposite parties. These two points are held in favour of the complainant and against the opposite parties, accordingly.

 

 

POINT NO.3:     In the result, the complaint is allowed in part, ordering the opposite parties 1 to 4 are jointly and severally liable to provide amenities as mentioned in the brochure to the complainant and also liable to pay Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees two lakhs only) to him, towards compensation and also to pay the costs of the complaint of Rs.3,000/- (Rupees three thousand only) to the complainant within one month from the date of the receipt of the order.

 

Typed to the dictation to the stenographer and corrected and pronounced by us in the Open Forum this the 31st day of August,              2015.    

 

               Sd/-                                                                         Sd/-

         MEMBER                                                                 PRESIDENT(FAC)

 

  APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

 WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR COMPLAINANT:

 

PW1

06-07-2015

:

Nellore Ravindra Reddy, S/o.Ramana Reddy, Hindu, aged 60 years, resident of 16-3-228, Ramalingapuram, Nellore Town.

 

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR OPPOSITE PARTIES:

 

RW1

02-04-2015

:

Mamidi Durga Prasad Reddy, S/o.Subba Reddy, Hindu, aged 50 years, resident of Brahmin Street, Mulapet, Nellore.

                                                                              

EXHIBITS MARKED FOR COMPLAINANT:

 

Ex.A1	18-04-2011	:	Original agreement of sale deed executed by the 1st opposite party in favour of the complainant.
Ex.A2	12-05-2011	:	Photostat copy of registered sale deed executed by the 1st opposite party in favour of the complainant.
Ex.A3	-	:	Broacher issued by the 1st opposite party relating to “Prasad Reddy Nagar”.
Ex.A4	16-06-2014	:	Office copy of the legal notice along with registered postal receipt issued on behalf of the complainant.
Ex.A5	23-06-2014	:	Reply notice issued on behalf of the 1st opposite party.

 

EXHIBITS MARKED FOR OPPOSITE PARTIES:                      

• NIL -

         Id/-                                                                                          PRESIDENT(FAC)

 

Copies to:

1. Sri V.Chandrasekhar Reddy, Advocate,

D.No.23-2-11, 1^st Cross Road, (C.A.M.Compound), Ramesh Reddy Nagar,

S.P.S.R.Nellore – 524 003.

2. Sri N.Sudheer Reddy, Advocate,

D.No.23-3-298, Akkanavari Street, Nellore-524003.

        

Date when order copies are issued: