IN THE DISTRICT CONSUMERS’ DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AT MYSORE<br /> <br /> PRESENT: 1. Shri.A.T.Munnoli<br /> B.A., L.L.B (Spl.) - President <br /> 2. Smt.Y.V.Uma Shenoi<br /> M.Sc., B.Ed., - Member<br /> <br /> 3. Shri. Shivakumar.J.<br /> B.A., L.L.B., - Member<br /> <br /> <br /> CC 393/09 DATED 02.11.2009<br /> ORDER<br /> <br /> Complainant Smt. Sujatha .V. Thantri, W/o Sri. K.V. Thantri, R/at No.22/A-23, 7th Main, Saraswathipuram, Mysore-570009. Rep by her GPA Holder Sri. Ramamurthy S/o K.N. Narayana Murthy, R/at No.22/A-23, 7th Main, Saraswathipuram, Mysore-570009.<br /> <br /> (By Sri. H.R. Sridhara, Advocate)<br /> <br /> Vs. <br /> Opposite Party The Commissioner, MUDA, J.L.B. Road, Mysore.<br /> <br /> <br /> Nature of complaint : Deficiency in service<br /> Date of filing of complaint : 27.10.2009<br /> Date of appearance of O.P. : <br /> Date of order : 02.11.2009<br /> Duration of Proceeding : <br /> <br /> <br /> PRESIDENT <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> MEMBER<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> MEMBER<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> Sri. A.T.Munnoli,<br /> President<br /> <br /> 1. The complainant has filed the complaint Under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act seeking a direction to the opposite party to issue Title Deed and sought other reliefs.<br /> <br /> 2. Amongst other facts it is alleged in the complaint that, the opposite party had allotted a site, bearing No.2800 at Dattagalli 3rd stage, Mysore to one Sri Krishnaiah in the year 1994. On 06.06.1994 Lease cum Sale Agreement was executed. The lease period was 10 years. After expiry of 10 years period, the allottee Krishnaiah became absolute owner of the site. He sold the site to the complainant for valuable consideration on 07.10.2004 through registered Sale Deed. The Sale Deed was executed by Krishnaiah through his GPA namely K.V. Thantri. The complainant has became an absolute owner of the site. It is stated that the complainant approached the opposite party for Title Deed in respect of the site, but that has not been complied.<br /> <br /> 3. Considering the facts of the case and the reliefs sought. We have heard the advocate for the complainant regarding maintainability. Also we have perused the entire records.<br /> <br /> 4. Now, the point for consideration is, whether the complaint as maintainable?<br /> <br /> 5. For the following reasons our finding is in negative.<br /> <br /> <br /> REASONS<br /> <br /> 6. According to the complainant, under Registered Sale Deed, she has purchased the site in question from Krishnaiah to whom it was allotted by MUDA. When the complainant has purchased the site from its owner under Registered Sale Deed, there will be no question of directing the opposite party to further execute one more Sale Deed in respect of the same property.<br /> <br /> 7. The relief sought by the complainant, as noted above is, to direct the opposite party to issue Title Deed. The Title Deed as we understood is a Deed transferring the right, title and interest by the opposite party in favour of the complainant. At the cost of repetition, as noted here before, admittedly the complainant has purchased the said site from its earlier owner under a Registered Sale Deed. Hence, when already there is a Title Deed in favour of the complainant, there is no question of one more Title Deed.<br /> <br /> 8. Secondly, it is relevant to note that, admittedly the opposite party has not at all allotted the site in question to the complainant. When the opposite party has not allotted the site to the complainant then there is no liability or obligation on the part of the opposite party in favour of the complainant and consequently, there is no question of deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party.<br /> <br /> 9. More over as noted above, the complainant has purchased the site under the Registered Sale Deed in the year 2004 and the present complaint is filed in the year 2009.<br /> <br /> 10. Consideration of several other aspects regarding the legality and validity of the right title and the interest of the complainant, at this stage is not necessary.<br /> <br /> 11. For the reasons noted above, we are of the opinion that the complaint is not maintainable. Accordingly following order.<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> ORDER<br /> <br /> 1. The Complaint is dismissed as not maintainable.<br /> 2. Give a copy of this order to the complainant according to Rules.<br /> (Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by her, transcript revised by us and then pronounced in the open Forum on this the day 2nd November 2009)<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> (A.T.Munnoli) <br /> President <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> (Y.V. Uma Shenoi)<br /> Member<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> (Shivakumar. J)<br /> Member<br /> <br />