Complainant’s case in a nutshell  is that , the complainant’s mother since deceased  purchased one land  from Sambhu Gangopadhyay with consideration price of Rs.1,25,000/- . The mother of the complainant has paid full consideration amount on 6.6.2005. The said Sambhu Gangopadhyay issued money receipt  on 10.6.2005 by handed over physical possession to the mother of the present complainant. But no registered deed was prepared i.e. the property in question was not registered and transferred as pre Registration Act.

            Said Pranati Mukherjee died leaving three daughters including the complainant. The complainant made agreement with the oP Bhaskar Chowdhur, Developer with condition that op would transfer 300 sq.ft. floor in first floor within 18 months. Op constructed G+4 building over the said plot of land but after expiry of 18 months the oP did not hand over the flat to the complainant. The complainant sent notice to the oP . The oP did not act as per request of the complainant in this case.

            The Op contested the case by filing Written version denying  inter alia all material allegations. The case of the oP is that agreement was done between the mother of the complainant and Sambhunath Gangopadhay . But thereafter the agreement was cancelled . The complainant did not acquire any right title interest of the property, insptie of that the complainant concealing the cancellation of the former agreement represented herself as owner  of the property and made agreement with the oP for sale . The oP started raising construction over the case property . But the two owners of the case property raised objection and the construction work was stopped. Then the two owners of the case property made executed a Deed of sale in favour of the wife of the oP and wife of the oP raised multi storied construction therein.

            It is known to the complainant that agreement dated 20.8.2011 which was made between the complainant and the oP has no legal force so with a view to illegal gain complainant has filed this false case. She has no title or she is not the owner of the property in question and as such she is not entitled to any relief.

            Op no.2 to 5 are the legal heirs of Sambhunath Ganguly with whom the mother of the complainant made agreement for sale but no sale deed was registered. It is stated by the oPs that Sambhunath Ganguly gave permission to the mother of the complainant to reside in the schedule property for some period but never entered into agreement for sale of their property and other cosharers Op no.2 to 5 then executed deed of sale in favour of the oP. OP no. 2 ,3,4,5

are the legal heirs of Sambhunath Ganguly . Accordingly, the present complainant has no locus standi to claim any property and building therein.

            Complainant filed  Xerox copy of Deed, copy of Khajna receipts , copy of another deed, copy of lawyer’s notice , evidence in chief and W.N.A.  Ops are filed Evidence n chief and Written Notes of argument.

                                                            POINTS FOR DECISION  

1. Whether the complainant is a consumer ?
2. Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the oP ?
3. Whether the complainant/petitioner is entitled to get relief as prayed for ?

DECISION WITH REASONS :

          All the points are taken up together for easiness of discussion.

            Annexure A shows that Sambhunath Gangopadhya made agreement with the Pranati Mukherjee for sale of the property. Annexure B shows , Sambhunath Gangopadhyay was Rayat . There is no other papers to show that mother of the complainant had any right title interest over the property in question with which complainant advanced and motivated the oP to execute agreement for sale and construction of flat. The complainant has  no right title interest over the property because her mother has not any right title interest over the property. Any further discussion is not necessary as the complainant has no right title interest over the property.

            So, after eying the document in record , we are of opinion that complainant is disentitled to get any relief as per claim.  Hence it is –

                                                            Ordered

            That the CC no. 16 of 2015 be and the same is dismissed on contest.

            Let a copy of this order be made over to the parties free of cost.