DATE OF FILING                    :     04.08.2014.

DATE OF S/R                            :      02.09.2014.

DATE OF FINAL ORDER      :     01.07.2015.

1. Sri  Amar  Ghosh,
2. Sri Amit Ghosh,

both son of late MonilalGhosh,

residing at village & P.O. Jhorehat, P.S. Sankrail,

District Howrah,

PIN 711302. ………………………………………………… COMPLAINANTS.

• Versus   -

1. Md. Safi Laskar,
2. Matab Laskar,
3. Altab Laskar,
4. Mahaboob Laskar,

all son of late Rafique Lakar,

residing at village & P.O. Argori, P.S. Sankrail,

District Howrah,

PIN 711302.

5. Rehana Begum,

w/o. AkbarAli Laskar,

residing at Sanapara ( Unsani ), P.O. Unsani, P.S. Jagacha,

District Howrah,

PIN 711 302. ………………………………………………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,  L.l.b., ( Retired Railway Officer ).         

                                                 F  I   N   A    L       O   R   D    E     R

1. This is an application U/S 12 of the C.P. Act, 1986 filed by the petitioners, Amar Ghosh, and his brother,  praying for a direction on the o.ps., Md. Safi Laskar, and four others to execute the deed of conveyance in favour of the petitioners after receiving the balance consideration money within specified time and they failing to do so to refund the deposited sum with interest and costs of the suit.   

2. The case of the petitioners is that the o.p. nos. 1 to 4 being owner and occupier of  R.S. plot no. 508 and L.R. plot no. 449 of khatian nos. 506/9, 374/6, 63/5, 374/7 at mouza Andul and o.p. no. 5 is the power of attorney holder. The o.p. nos. 1 to 4 wishes to sell the above property at a consideration of Rs. 60,000/- and the petitioners agreed to purchase the same and there was an agreement between the parties on 03.02.2003 and the o.p. no. 5 received Rs. 35,000/-.  The o.p. nos. 1 to 4 delivered possession in favour of the petitioners on 23.01.2003 when Rs. 5,000/- was received by o.p. no. 5. In the month of December,2005 the complainants expressed their willingness to make payment of Rs. 25,000/- and asked o.p. nos. 1 to 5 to execute the  deed of conveyance and to give them the power to attorney and the o.ps. told him that they delivered the physical possession and also execute the deed later on. In June, 2008 the petitioner requested the o.p. nos. 1 to 5 for executing the deed by taking the balance consideration but they did not. On 09.6.2014 the petitioner wrote a letter to the o.ps. asking them to execute the deed of conveyance but no reply received and then this case was filed.     

3. The o.ps. though served with notice did not appear and thus the case is heard ex parte against them.

4. The only point to be decided herein whether the petitioners are entitled to get the relief as prayed for ?

DECISION  WITH   REASONS      :

5. The oral and documentary evidences filed by the petitioners so that they entered into an agreement with the o.ps. for purchase of the suit property as  mentioned in the schedule of the agreement measuring about 1 cent in dag no. 506/9, 374/6, 63/5 and 374/7 at a consideration of Rs. 60,000/- and in spite of receiving Rs. 40,000/- but the deed of conveyance was not executed. The petitioner went on requesting the o.ps. to execute the deed but the o.ps. continued to delay and finally on 09.06.2014 when the petitioners a letter requesting the o.ps. to execute the deed and they did no reply the same then the petitioners filed this case stating that the cause of action arose on 15.6.2014 and ld. counsel submitted that this case is not barred by limitation as the cause of action continued.  All the evidence being the copy of the agreement with endorsement of receiving money and the letter issued by the petitioner to the o.ps. proved the fact that the o.ps. by their act and conduct refused to execute the deed or to refund the money compelling the petitioners to file the  case.

6. The petitioners miserably suffered by advancing the sum of Rs. 35,000/- though the petitioner got the possession and gave another Rs. 5,000/- to the o.p. no. 5 yet in the absence of a registered conveyance deed. There is enough cause for him to file a case praying for a direction on the o.ps. to execute the deed or to refund the money with interest. There is nothing to disbelieve the case of the petitioners as all the evidences went unchallenged and there is nothing to disbelieve neither the petitioner’s affidavit in evidence nor the documents.

          In the result, the claim case succeeds.

          Court fee paid is correct.

Hence,

 O     R     D      E      R      E        D

      That the C. C. Case No. 428 of 2014 ( HDF 428  of 2014 )  be and the same is  allowed ex parte  with  costs  against  the O.Ps. 

      The petitioners are entitled to get the reliefs and the o.ps. are directed to execute and register the deed in favour of the petitioners as mentioned in the agreement after receiving the rest amount or  to refund the sum of Rs. 40,000/- taken by them on 23.10.2003 with 9% interest till realization.

           The petitioners are also entitled to get compensation for a sum of Rs. 5,000/- for the physical and mental harassment and also entitled to Rs. 2,000/- as litigation costs.

      The o.ps. are directed to comply the order of the Forum within 30 days from the date of this order failing the petitioners are at liberty to put the order in execution. 

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

     DICTATED  &    CORRECTED

BY   ME.  

  (    B. D.  Nanda   )                                              

  President,  C.D.R.F., Howrah.