PerJustice Shri S.B.Mhase, Hon'ble President: 

This appeal takes an exception to an order passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Pune in consumer complaint no.249/2002  decided on 05/03/2009.  The original complainant is respondent no.1 while the appellants are original opponent no.5 and 6.  Respondent nos.2 to 5 are the original opponent nos. 1 to 4.  The facts which are not in dispute are as follows:

          That the complainant has purchased a house no.99 situated at Rasta Peth which was/is property belonging to Shri Chandramant Martand Mote and his family members.  Said property was given by those owners for the development to respondent nos. 2 to 5 by an agreement dated 08/02/1990.  There was also irrevocable power of attorney in favour of respondent nos. 2 to 5 executed by the owners of the said plot.  Since the said property was under development the respondent no.1/complainant has booked a flat no.1 admeasuring to 430 sq.ft. built up for price of Rs.1,84,900/- and accordingly, the agreement was registered in between the Mr.Ajay Jaganath Sonar/respondent no.3 being the partner of respondent no.2/M/s. B.G. Constructions.  Said agreement was registered in February- 1992 at serial no.402 with the office of Sub-Registrar, Haveli no.II.  Thereafter, it appears that owners of the said plot again entered into a development agreement with the appellant on 14/02/2001.  What happens to the earlier agreement is not reflected from the said agreement.  Equally the owners have also executed irrevocable power of attorney in favour of the appellant on the same date.  Thereafter, the appellants have constructed and developed the said property and when the complainant contacted them to get possession, she was told that she will not get flat and since her rights were denied, she approached the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Pune.

          District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Pune has considered the facts and directed the appellant and respondent nos. 2 to 5 to return the amount of Rs.80,245/- along with interest @ 12% p.a. from 2/10/1993.  Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the said order, this appeal has been preferred

          The only argument submitted by the appellant is that before entering into an agreement, in 2001 the appellant has taken a search and obtained title certificate from Adv.Mr.Kale and relying upon the said title certificate, the transaction was entered and therefore, the appellant is bonafide transferee of the said property for consideration and therefore, the claim of the respondent no.1 cannot be enforced as against the appellant.  It is further submitted that there is no privity of contract between the appellant and respondent and therefore, the directions to make payments for deficiency in service cannot be given by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum.

          What we have noticed that the agreement on the basis of which the complainant is claiming flat and / or return of consideration of money advanced  is  a registered document.  After perusal of the search report which was taken by Mrs.Chivate who was junior of Adv.Mr.Kale, it is revealed that index from 1973 to 2002 were made available.  If the indexes would have been made available to the concerned advocate, then it could not be said that transaction which was registered by the complainant will not be evident to them.  On the contrary, it is negligence on the part of said advocate not to trace the said transaction.  The advocate taking search should have insisted for inspection of Index No. II  book.  Therefore, the title report or the search report will not help the appellant in any manner.  If we stated to rely such search and title reports, then it would be very easy for builder developers and /or purchasers to defeat the claim of earlier transferee or person having interest in such property. The only inference follows that whatever transactions the appellant had entered with the owner were subject to the rights of the complainant and complainant were entitled to enforce the said rights as against the subsequent transferees also.  The case made out is that the appellant is bonafide transferee for consideration without notice of  transaction of the complainant is not sustainable in law, when in fact document is registered a document with Sub-Registrar as stated earlier.  Therefore, what we find that both the contentions raised by the Ld.Counsel for the appellant are without any merits and they deserves to be rejected. 

          We find that order directing repayment of the amount is thus appropriate in the facts and circumstances of the case.  The appeal is hereby rejected.  Hence, we pass the following order:-

                                                :-ORDER-:

1.     Appeal stands rejected.

2.     Amount deposited by the appellant be transferred back to the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Pune so as to make payment to the org. complainant, however after the revision period is over. 

3.     No order as to costs.

4.     Copies of the order herein be furnished to the parties.