BEFORE THE A.P. STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

ATHYDERABAD.

F.A. 948/2006 against C.D 402/2002, Dist. Forum, Mahaboobnagar 

Between:

1. Pedda Narayan Reddy

S/o. Venkat Reddy

Age: 60 years,

R/o. Vaspul village

Midjil Mandal

Mahaboobnagar Dist.

2. Venkat Reddy

S/o. Pedda Narayan Reddy

Age: 40 years, Business

R/o. Vaspul village

Midjil Mandal

Mahaboobnagar Dist.                                                                                               And

1. Sri Laxmi Enclaves

Mahaboobnagar

Rep. by its Manager

V. Shiva Reddy,

Age: 50 years

H.No. 8-3-3/BCD

Mettagadda

Mahaboobnagar.

2. 

Age: 20 years, Business

H.No. 1-3-151C,

Dr. Vijayalaxmi Compound

Rajendrangar, Mahaboobnagar

3. 

S/o. S. Narender Reddy

H.No. 6-82, 1^stNarayanaguda,Hyderabad

4. 

Age: 30 years, H.No. 3-4-874

1^st

Hyderabad.

5. 

Age: 33 years, Ram Reddy Complex

Rajendranagar

Mahabubnagar.

6. 

S/o. Panduranga Reddy

Age: 40 years, Business

Plot No. 37, CH 67096,

Ballari Chowrasta

Ganeshnagar,Kurnool.

7. 

S/o. Ram Singh

Age: 40 years, RMP Doctor

R/o.BuddaramVillage

Gopalpet Mandal

Mahabubnagar Dist.

8. 

Age: 35 years, Business

R/o. Near Ek Minar

Teahcers’ Colony

Mahabubnagar

9. 

S/o. Late Yellobha Rao

Business, H.No. 9-60

Kaverammapeta

Jadcherla,

Mahabubnagar Dist.

10. 

W/o. Padmanabha Goud

Business, Plot No. 347

H.No. 6-65, Srinivasa Colony

Mahabubnagar.

11. 

S/o. Rajaiah.

Age: 65 years, Sri Laxmi Enclaves

H.No. 31-35, Jayalaxmi Nivas

Signalgadda, Jadcherla

Mahabubnagar.                                                                                     

Counsel for the Appellants:                       

Counsel for the Resps:                              

QUORUM:

&

WEDNESDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND EIGHT

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

                   thth                    

Notices    

R7 filed counter alleging that   complainants     

R9 filed counter alleging that         wherein it was agreed that             Therefore, he prayed that the complaint against him be dismissed.

R11 filed counter.             guarantee for balance amount of Rs.5,550/-. Accordingly  

the name of complainant No. 2    

               Though he  

                   to show that     

               However, they did not respond.  

vendor and interest.   Though it has filed Ex. A30 brochure/application, no datafloated      R9 with R1, introduced a theory that       evidenced under Ex. B1, and therefore there was no liability on him to execute the sale deed once again in his favour. 

                 understanding.   respondents to execute another sale deed will not arise.                     We do not see any infirmity