Andhra Pradesh

Visakhapatnam-II

CC/20/2011

Gantyada Ramana - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s Sai Sandeep Builders - Opp.Party(s)

J.A.S. Jyothi

23 Feb 2015

ORDER

Reg.of the Complaint:11-01-2011

                                                                                                                                    Date of Order:23-02-2015 BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMERS FORUM-II

AT VISAKHAPATNAM

                   Present:

1.Sri H.ANANDHA RAO, M.A., L.L.B.,

       President

2.Sri C.V.N. RAO, M.A., B.L.,

                                             Male Member

3.Smt.K.SAROJA, M.A., B.L.,

       Lady Member

                                            

 

MONDAY, THE 23^RD DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2015

CONSUMER CASE NO.20/2011

 

BETWEEN:

SRI GANTYADA  RAMANA S/O LATE BANGARAYYA,

HINDU, AGED 40 YEARS, PVT. EMPLOYEE,

R/AT D.NO.58-11-119, OLD KARASA,

VISAKHAPATNAM.

 

                                                                                             …COMPLAINANT

A N D:

 

1.  M/s SAI SANDEEN BUILDERS, REP. BY ITS PROPRIETOR,

KAMBABU KALYANI W/O SATYANARAYANA REDDY,

HINDU, AGED 40 YEARS, R/AT D.NO.46-3-45, KUMMARI VEEDHI,

DONDAPARTHY, VISAKHAPATNAM-16.

2.SRI KAMBABU SATYA NARAYANA REDDY S/O NOT KNOWN TO COMPLAINANT,

HINDU, R/AT D.NO.46-3-45, KUMMARI VEEDHI,

DONDAPARTHY, VISAKHAPATNAM-16.

                                                                                         …OPPOSITE PARTIES

 

This case coming on 05-02-2015 for final hearing before this Forum in the presence of Kum.J.A.S.Jyothi, Advocate for the Complainant and of                  Sri K.APPA RAO, Advocate for the Opposite Parties, and having stood over till this day for consideration, the Forum made the following:

 

O  R  D  E  R

(As per the Honourable President on behalf of the Bench)

1.       The Complainant filed the present complaint against the Opposite Parties, directing them to deliver  the flat with double room in an extent of 650sq.ft in ground floor which was construed in tax assessment No.73999/637  Old Karasa, NAD Post, Visakhapatnam worth of Rs.19,00,000/-, Rs.50,000/- towards compensation, Rs.5,000/- towards costs.

2.       The case of the complainant in brief is that the 1^st OP is the proprietor of Sai Sandeep Builders  and the 2^nd OP is the husband of OP1 in an extent of 216 sd.yds  was given to the OPs for development and the 1^st OP executed Development Agreement  in his favour on 30-12-2006 wherein it is agreed that they constructed the building after getting approval building plan and further agreed that they released the above said property which is under mortgage for Rs.1,50,000/- with interest and further agreed to deliver the flat in the ground floor of the building in an extent of 625sft and pay cash of Rs.75,000/- to him. After repaying the mortgage amount and inspite of discharging his liability as agreed as per the development agreement, the OPs did not deliver the flat in ground floor as agreed and postponing the same on one pretext or the other. Hence, this complaint.

3.       The case of OP-1 adopted by 2^nd OP, denying the material averments of the complaint contended that the 2^nd OP is no way concerned  with Sai Sandeep builders and there is another partner to the said firm but not shown as a party. Therefore, the complaint is bad for mis-joinder of necessary parties. The extent of property that was given to them is 159.66sq.yds but not 216sq.yds. The Item No.1 of the Relinquishment deed dated 21-07-2005 is 1732/2005 but not 17732/07 as per the Development Agreement, the OP does not agree to clear the mortgage amount of Rs.1,50,000/-.

4.       Though the complainant along with Inada Appa Rao and first OP herein has executed a sale agreement cum GPA dated 31-01-2009 in favour of the 3^rd party purchaser i.e., 2^nd OP herein having received the sale consideration of Rs.6,56,000/- with regard to an extent of 20sq.yds plinth area of 650sq.ft situated in ground floor G-1 of Sai Subrahmanyam Residency, i.e., Schedule property mentioned in the said document.  It is recited therein that the respective flats to the complainant and another vendor  Inada Appa Rao were delivered to them and the same was acknowledged by the complainant and Inada Appa Rao in the said GPA cum sale. It is agreed by the complainant and Inada Appa Rao in the sale agreement cum GPA, an extent of 20sq.yds plinth area 650sft situated in ground floor G-1, the 3^rd party purchaser has every right to alienate the said property but any 3^rd parties as per her wish for which the complainant herein and India Appa Rao had no objection to register the said flat as directed by the 3^rd party purchaser. As the complainant and Inda Appa Rao taken delivery of their respective flats, they have no right over G-1 flat except the 2^nd OP herein. Further, the 3^rd party purchaser K.S.N.REDDY  has alienated the ground floor and flat to a 3^rd party and the same was delivered to him as such, the question of delivery of the said flat to the complainant does not arise. For these reasons, the complaint is liable to be dismissed.

5.       To prove the case on behalf of the complainant, he filed his evidence affidavit and got marked Exhibits A1 to A4. On the other hand, on behalf of the OPs, OP1 filed his evidence affidavit and got marked Exhibits B1 only.       

6.       Exhibit A1 is the Registered Relinquishment deed dated 27-07-2005, Exhibit A2 is the Development Agreement dated 30-12-2006, Exhibit A3 is the Tax pass book in the name of the complainant,  Exhibit A4 is the Electricity Bill .

Exhibit B1 is the Agreement -cum General Power of Attorney dated 31-01-2009.

8.       Both parties filed their written arguments.

9.       Heard oral arguments of Opposite Parties.

10.     Now the point for determination to be determined in this case is;

Whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of the OPs and the Complainant is entitled to any reliefs asked for?

11.     During the course of arguments, the counsel for OPs filed memo stating that the complainant along with Inada Appa Rao and OP1 herein has executed a sale agreement cum GPA dated 31-01-2009 in favour of 3^rd party purchaser with regard to an extent of 20sq.yds plinth area 650 sq.ft situated in ground floor G-1 by Sai Subrahmanyam Residency  for which the complainant and Inada Appa Rao has no objection to register the said flat as directed by OP. The complainant has taken delivery of his flat under document No.127/2009 and C.S.No.139/09 on 27-01-2009, therefore, he has no right over G1 flat except OP.  To prove the case of OP, they filed GPA cum Sale agreement executed by the complainant, Inada Appa Rao and 1^st OP in favour of the 2^nd OP and it is marked as Exhibit B1. Exhibit B1 GPA cum sale agreement clearly goes to show that the 3^rd party purchaser KSN Reddy  has alienated the ground floor to 3^rd party and the same was delivered to him.

12.     Since the complainant and Inada Appa Rao executed Exhibit B1 the GPA has every right to alienate the said property to 3^rd parties as per his wish and they may have no objection to register the said flat as directed by the 3^rd Party purchaser as the complainant and Inada Appa Rao taken delivery of all their respective flats. If that be so, it is to be held that they have no right over the G-1 flat as sought for by the complainant. On scrutiny of the evidence let in both sides coupled with Exhibit B1, we are of the considered view that there  is no deficiency of service on the part of the OPs as contended by the complainant, therefore, the complaint is liable to be dismissed.

13.     In the result, this complaint is dismissed. No costs.

Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced by us in the open Forum, on this the 23^rd day of February, 2015.

 

  Sd/-                                                  Sd/-                                      Sd/-

LADY MEMBER                       MALE MEMBER                       PRESIDENT        

 

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

  For the Complainant:-

Exhibits	Date	Description	Remarks
A 1	27-07-2005	Registered Relinquishment deed	Photocopy
A2	30-12-2006	Development agreement	Photocopy
A3		Tax pass book in the name of the father of the complainant	Original
A4		Electricity Bill	Photostat copy

For the Opposite Parties:-  

Exhibits	Date	Description	Remarks
B1	31-01-2009	Sale agreement cum General Power of attorney	Certified copy

 

  Sd/-                                                  Sd/-                                      Sd/-

LADY MEMBER                       MALE MEMBER                       PRESIDENT