S.N. Banerjee Road, P.S. New Market, Kolkata-69.

4)       Debashis Dhar,

193, Parnashree Pally, Kolkata-60.                                                                 ---------- Opposite Partis

Present :           Sri Sankar Nath Das, President.                                                        

                        Dr. Subir Kumar Chaudhuri ,Member

                        Smt. Sharmi Basu ,Member

Order No.   24    Dated  30/01/2013.

Sharmi Basu, Member

            The case of the complainant in short is that complainant along with her daughter Smt. Sanjukta Dhar (since deceased) booked a flat and paid Rs.6,00,008/- as consideration  and possession of the flat in question was given to complainant by o.p. no.1 (developer) on 1.9.04. As per the complainant, o.p. no.1 did not execute and register the deed of conveyance of the suit flat in the name of the intending purchasers.  This is also the case of the complainant that complainant allowed her daughter Sanjukta Dhar (since deceased) along with her husband to reside in the suit flat and the husband of Sanjukta Dhar (since deceased), o.p. no.4, in connivance with the o.p. no.1 planned to manage to execute the deed of conveyance in the name of o.p. no.4 and his wife and later murdered his wife. From the letter of advocate of o.p. no.1 the complainant came to know that the deed of conveyance of the suit flat was registered in the name of her daughter (since deceased) and her son-in-law, o.p. no.4. Immediately complainant lodged complaint at concerned P.S. and the police investigated the case. From the report of A.D.S.R. Behala it reveals that the alleged deed so produced is fake and also the alleged deed was missing from the custody. It is also mentioned by complainant that o.p. no.1 stated that complainant gave consent by writing to o.p. no.1 to execute and register the deed of conveyance in favour of o.p. no.4. But that signature of complainant was proved as forged signature. Hence, the complainant has no alternative but to file the instant case before this Forum for redressal of his dispute with the prayer contained in the petition of complaint.

            O.p nos.1, 3 & 4 had entered their appearance in this case by filing w/v and denied all the material allegations labeled against them and prayed for dismissal of the case. O.p. no.1 interalia stated that although the entire consideration amount in respect of the suit flat was paid by the intending purchaser well before handing over possession of that flat on or about Sept. 2004 but for the first time on or about 2007, one of the purchasers Sanjukta Dhar (since deceased) daughter of the complainant approached to  o.p. no.1 for execution and registration of deed of conveyance in relation to the suit flat in her name jointly with her husband Sri Debashis Dhar, o.p. no.4. As per the o.p. no.1, the complainant, thereafter, verbally confirmed the o.p. no.1 to execute such deed of conveyance in the joint name of Sanjukta Dhar (since deceased) and o.p. no.4 and ultimately complainant gave the consent in writing for aforesaid registration.

            Ld. counsel for o.p.no.4 stated that the deed of conveyance in respect of the said flat was executed in favour of o.p. no.4  and his wife and since then o.p. no.4 was in possession of the flat with his wife, Sanjukta Dhar (since deceased) upon mutating their name in the office of Kolkata Municipal Corporation, o.p. no.3. And o.p. no.4 also brought electric meter in their name from CESC and all the rent and taxes were paid by o.p. no.4.

            Ld. counsel of o.p. no.3 stated that the alleged facts were not disclosed by any person to the K.M.C.

            The case is heard exparte against op.no.2 as o.p.no.2 has not appeared before this Forum even after valid service of notice.

Decision with reasons:-

            We have gone through the pleadings of the parties, evidence and documents in particular. It is observed from the record that admittedly the complainant and her daughter (since deceased) purchased a flat from o.p.no.1 and paid the full consideration amount towards the flat in question and the complainant is in possession. It is also apparent from record that the suit property was mutated in the name of the daughter of the complainant (since deceased) and the o.p.no.4. with the K.M.C., o.p. no.3. But  in the letter of Additional District Sub Registrar, Behala to the complainant vide memo no.215 dt.11.11.11 it is mentioned “In response to your letter dated 7.11.2011, I would like to inform you that Deed No.10582 does not match with Sl. No.3293 of 2007. Seals of my office appear to be genuine but signature of the officer does not appear to be genuine”.

            Therefore, we are of the opinion that the mutation in question loses its basis on the strength of forged deed referred to immediately above and KMC is directed not to put credence of the mutation recorded therein in respect of forged deed in question i.e. Deed No.10582.

            It has been alleged by complainant by the petition of complaint that Sanjukta Dhar (since deceased) was murdered by her husband, o.p. no.4 and in this respect we have nothing to comment since the matters fall within the jurisdiction of criminal domain.

            It is the case of the complainant that the flat in question is required to be registered in her name alone since she bore entire consideration amount although  the flat in question was purchased in the name of  Sanjukta Dhar (since deceased) and herself vide para 1 of the petition of complaint.

            Now we are of the opinion that the flat in question needs be registered in the name of legal heir / heirs of Sanjukta Dhar (since deceased) and also in the name of the complainant and the devolution of civil right cannot be set apart.

            In view of the above findings and on perusal of the entire materials on record we are of the views that o.p. no.1 had sufficient deficiencies in service being service provider and complainant is entitled to relief.

            Hence, ordered,

            That the case is allowed on contest with cost against o.p. no.1 and without cost against o.p. nos.3 and 4 and ex parte without cost against o.p. no.2. O.p. no.1 is directed to execute and register the deed of conveyance in respect of the suit flat in favour of the legal heir / heirs of Sanjukta Dhar (since deceased) and also in the name of the complainant and is also directed to pay compensation of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees twenty thousand) only for harassment and mental agony and litigation  cost of Rs.5000/- (Rupees five thousand) only within 45 days from the date of communication of this order, i.d. an interest @ 10% shall accrue over the entire sum due to the credit of the complainant till full and final realization.

            Complainant is at liberty to file execution case before this Forum in case of non execution of the aforesaid order in its entirety within the stipulated period under the provision of the COPRA, 1986.

            Supply certified copy of this order to the parties free of cost.