This is a case filed by one Smt. Mousumi Chakraborty against M/s Desire Agro Resorts Development Projects Ltd., praying for a direction upon the OP to handover the schedule plot of land or return Rs. 1,37,488/- (inadvertently mentioned as Rs. 11,37,488/- in the prayer portion of the petition of complaint), payment of compensation for a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- and litigation cost amounting to Rs. 25,000/-.
In brief, case of the Complainant, is that, she entered into an agreement with the OP for the purpose of purchasing a plot of land measuring 1,800 sq. ft. at a total consideration amount of Rs. 1,37,488/- and as per the agreement, she paid the total consideration money to the OP. However, the OP has not handed over the plot of land to her in gross violation of the agreement in question. Hence, this case.
Per contra, case of the OP, is that, the present case is barred by law of limitation. The agreement was signed in between the parties on 31-05-2005, whereas, the Complainant initiated the present case in the 3rd week of January, 2016, i.e., after lapse of nearly 11 years. Thus, the present case is not maintainable. It is further stated that, due to certain legal obligations/complications and/or certain legal restrictions, OP could not complete the development work and as such, OP is not in a position to handover the same to the Complainant immediately. That apart, it is stated by the OP that, as per clause 12 of the Agreement dated 31-05-2005, the Complainant is free to withdraw the invested sum. Accordingly, it prayed for dismissal of the case.
Point for determination is whether the Complainant is entitled to any relief, or not.
Decision with reasons
We have meticulously gone through the documents on record, including the Deed of Agreement, executed in between the parties on 31-05-2005.
It is stipulated in Clause 10 of the said Agreement that, “Upon completion of the development work as specified herein or as may be required to be done, executed and performed by the said D.A.R.D., within three/five years from the date of execution of these presents or within such reasonable time as D.A.R.D. thinks fit and proper but subject to due intimation to the purchaser herein and subject to terms and conditions specified herein, the said DARD will handover vacant peaceful possession of the said plot unto and in favour of the purchaser subject of future observance and compliance with the terms and conditions contained hereinafter, as also the terms and conditions contended in the Agreement for sale by and between the said D.A.R.D. and the purchaser referred to herein before as also such further or other conditions as may be imposed upon” (sic).
A reading in between the lines of aforesaid clause clearly establish the fact that although a time frame of three/five years has been envisaged in the said agreement for the purpose of handing over delivery/possession of the plot in question, this was subject to extension at the insistence of the OP. Insofar as OP could not discharge its legal obligation because of its own lacunae, it was incumbent upon the OP to seek further time from the Complainant for this purpose. Given that it did not do so, the bucks stop at its doorstep only. Therefore, on a thoughtful consideration of the dispute under consideration, we are of view that the instant case is not hit by the law of limitation in the strictest term of the word.
Although the Complainant has sought for relief in the form of getting the schedule plot of land, it is stated by the OP that in view of certain legal obligations/complications and/or certain legal restrictions, it is not in a position to handover/deliver possession of the schedule plot of land in favour of the Complainant; however, in terms of Clause 12 of the Agreement in question, the Complainant is free to withdraw her invested sum which incidentally is also the alternative prayer of the Complainant. In this regard, be it mentioned here that to prove the bona fide of her claim, Complainant has filed photocopies of money receipts pertaining to payment of 36 instalments. The OP has not challenged the authenticity of the said money receipts. Thus, it can reasonably be held that the Complainant has discharged her responsibility fully insofar as payment of instalments is concerned.
In such circumstances, we deem it absolutely fit and proper in the interests of justice to direct the OP return the total consideration money paid by the Complainant for the schedule plot in question.
Hence,
O R D E R E D
that CC/31/2016 be and the same is allowed in part on contest against the OP. The OP is directed to return Rs. 1,37,488/- to the Complainant within two months from this date. In default, the aforesaid amount shall carry interest @ 10% p.a. after expiry of two months till full and final payment is made.
