BEFORE THE A.P. STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

AT HYDERABAD.

E.A. 24/2009  in C.C. 62/2006

Between:

Smt. Vidya Rao

W/o. Late B. R. Revathi Rao

Age: 55 years, Household

H.No. 34, ‘Quite Lands’

Indira Nagar, Gachibowli

Hyderabad.                                                           ***                        Petitioner/DHr

Complainant

And

M/s. Narne Estates Pvt.  Ltd.,

1, Gunrock Enclave

Secunderabad

Rep. by its Managing Director/

General Manager.                                       ***                         Resp/JDr

Opposite Party

Counsel for the Complainant:                     M/s.  P. Shiv Kumar

Counsel for the Opposite party:                  M/s. D. Venkat Reddy

Coram:

                          HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D. APPA RAO, PRESIDENT     

&

                                            SMT. M. SHREESHA, MEMBER

MONDAY, THIS THE  FOURTEENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND TEN

Oral Order: (Per Hon’ble Justice D. Appa Rao, President)

                                                         *****

1)                 Pursuant to the orders of this Commission Dt.  19.2.2010,    the respondent,  a real estate company filed draft sale deed pertaining to plot No. 43, admeasuring 333 sq.yds at Golden Heights phase-II project situated at Ravalkote village of Medchal mandal in Ranga Reddy district.  The complainant objected  to the said draft sale deed alleging that it was not in conformity with the order with regard to several aspects. 

2)                Complainant objected to clause No. 1 of the draft sale deed  on the ground that   despite the fact that an amount of Rs. 78,294/- was paid under receipt No.  55549 Dt.  27.7.1993 the said fact was not reflected.     The learned counsel for the respondent contended that no consideration was received.    The record discloses that an amount of Rs. 78,294/- was paid and the same was accepted by the respondent by issuing above said receipt.   Having opined in the order that the said amount was received, the respondent is directed to mention the said fact in clause-1 of the sale deed. 

3)                 There is no recital as to the delivery of the possession of the property.    Undoubtedly such a recital is essential and mandatory for completion of sale transaction.    Therefore the respondent is directed to make a recital as to the delivery of the possession of the property before execution of sale deed.

4)                 The complainant objected to clause No. 6 of the draft sale deed wherein it was mentioned “that plans for construction of house in the said plot of land shall be approved by Narne Estate Pvt. Ltd., before submitting for sanction to the concerned authority”.     Having sold the property  passing title  in favour of complainant  it cannot incorporate  such stipulation  not enjoined under law.  This stipulation is incorporated obviously to create problems.  It is for her to construct any house as she pleases in the site, however, after taking approvals from the GHMC/Grama Panchayat or any other authorised authority.   The respondent cannot insist that the approval  should be taken from it. 

5)                 The complainant objected to clause 7 & 8 of the draft sale deed wherein there was a mention that “petitioner shall also contribute sums for laying of roads, parks, amenities, water supply, electricity etc.    It is too late a day to claim the said amount.   It did not allege that the amount towards development charges to be paid.   In fact earlier  the complainant  paid the amount it includes all expenses viz., development charges etc.   Therefore this clause has to be deleted from the registered sale deed.    The fact that she has paid the development charges was admitted by various letters, more so, letter Dt. 19.11.1993. 

6)                 The complainant has objected to clause No. 9 in the draft sale deed which reads as follows:

          “That the vendee hereby agrees that if, he/she wants to sell the said plot first it should be offered to vendor only”

Ex-facie this clause is unjust and unlawful.   There is no pre-emptory right in favour of the vendor.  Introducing such a clause is unlawful.   It is a clog on alienation.    Therefore this clause has to be deleted from the draft sale deed. 

7)                 The complainant intends that indemnity clause to be introduced.    We may state even if such clause is not there the vendor  had to indemnify the loss  if any  had occasioned to the vendee due to the acts of the vendor. 

8)                 In the result  the respondent/opposite party is directed to execute the registered sale deed as per the above directions by deleting unnecessary clauses as indicated above.    The respondent/opposite party shall not be allowed to  raise any further disputes in this regard.  It had to  promptly register the property in favour of the complainant.

9)                 For filling proof of registered sale deed by 30. 06. 2010. 

Sd/- PRESIDENT            

Sd/- MEMBER              

 Dt.  14. 06.  2010.

*pnr

“UP LOAD – O.K.”