BEFORE THE A.P.STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION: AT HYDERABAD.

F.A.No. 1286 OF 2006 AGAINST C.D.NO.80 OF 2005 DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM-II KRISHNA AT VIJAYAWADA

Between
Ruthala Somaiah @ Someswara Rao
S/o Yerra Patrudu R/o D.No.33-32-25
Backside of Anand Gold Tea Centre
Visalandhra Road, Vijayawada
                                                               complainant

1.  My Home Builders Pvt. Ltd.,
Rep. by its Managing Director,
Rongala Govardhana Rao
D.No.39-20-5, Opp.Water Tank
Labbipet, Bandar road,
Vijayawada-101

2.        

3.       

Counsel for the Appellant             

Counsel for the Respondents No.1&2 Counsel for the Respondent No.3          

F.A.No. 1372 OF 2008 AGAINST C.D.NO.80 OF 2005 DISTRICT

Between:

1.  My Home Builders Pvt. Ltd.,
Rep. by its Managing Director,
Rongala Govardhana Rao
D.No.39-20-5, Opp.Water Tank
Labbipet, Bandar road,
Vijayawada-101

2.        

1.  Ruthala Somaiah @ Someswara Rao
S/o Yerra Patrudu R/o D.No.33-32-25
Backside of Anand Gold Tea Centre
Visalandhra Road, Vijayawada
Krishna Dist.
 2.  Sri Bankuru Appa Rao S/o China Dali Naidu
Director, My Home Builders Pvt. Ltd.,
R/o Flat No.89, Vasantha Nagar,
Kukatpalli, Hyderabad
(R2 not necessary party)

Respondent/opposite party no.3

Counsel for the Appellants                    

Counsel for the Respondents No.1 Counsel for the Respondent No.2                      

F.A.No. 1065 OF 2009 AGAINST C.D.NO.80 OF 2005 DISTRICT

Between
Sri Bankuru Appa Rao S/o China Dali Naidu
Director, My Home Builders Pvt. Ltd.,
R/o Flat No.89, Vasantha Nagar,
Kukatpalli, Hyderabad

1.  Ruthala Somaiah @ Someswara Rao
S/o Yerra Patrudu R/o D.No.33-32-25
Backside of Anand Gold Tea Centre
Visalandhra Road, Vijayawada
Krishna Dist.
 2.  My Home Builders Pvt. Ltd.,
Rep. by its Managing Director,
Rongala Govardhana Rao
D.No.39-20-5, Opp.Water Tank
Labbipet, Bandar road,
Vijayawada, Krishna Dist.

3.        

Counsel for the Appellant                     

Counsel for the Respondents No.1  Counsel for the Respondent No. 2 &3      

   QUORUM:        SRI SYED ABDULLAH, PRESIDING MEMBER

&

Oral Order ( As per R.Lakshminarsimha Rao, Member)
  

           The complainant eke out of living by running his business in the shop allotted to him.  

The complainant failed to keep his promise and requested the opposite parties no.1 and 2 to sell the shop no.9 and permit him to continue his business in the shop.   

A fresh written agreement of sale was executed by the opposite parties no.1 and 2 in favour of the wife of the complainant on 28.4.2001 which was duly registered and the complainant evaded to get executed a sale deed till the month of July 2003 by raising a dispute in regard to the lay out plan whereby the opposite parties agreed to the proposal of the complainant and refunded an amount of Rs.10,000/- by refixing the sale consideration at Rs.65,000/-.    

The complainant purchased shop no.9 with knowledge and information that there is no approval of layout for the shop and the complainant has been in possession and enjoyment of the shop since 1997 and the opposite party no.3 has no concern with the complaint as he acted as the Director of the A.1 Private Limited firm for a period of three months during the year 2001 and thereafter he has resigned.  

1)  Whether the complainant is entitled to the sum of Rs.1,82,000/- in addition to the amount of Rs.one as awarded by the District Forum?

2)  Whether opposite parties no.1 and 2 are entitled to re-conveyance of title in respect of shop no.9?

3)  Whether the opposite party no.3 has no concern with the transactions between the complainant and the opposite parties no.1 and 2?

4)  To what relief?

POINTS NO.1 AND 2              

Thus the sale transaction in respect of shop no.9 purchased by the complainant from the opposite parties no.1 and 2 has a chequered checkered      

The opposite parties have relied upon the copy of sale deeds Exs.B1 to B4, the copies of sale deeds executed by the opposite parties    

The complainant submits that the opposite parties no.1 and 2 misguided him that the shop no.9 allotted to him was provided with an approved layout. The opposite parties no.1 and 2 contend that the complainant has knowledge of the fact that the shop no.9 that was purchased by the complainant had no sanction of approved layout plan and the complainant had the knowledge of the said fact.       

Coming to the role of the opposite party no.3 in the transactions held between the complainant and the opposite parties no.1 and 2, it is contended on behalf of the opposite party no.3 that the opposite party no.3 had no concern whatsoever in regard to any of the transactions between the complainant and the opposite parties no.1 and 2.        

In the result F.A.No.1286 of 2006 is dismissed confirming the order of the District Forum. 

F.A.No.1372 of 2008 is allowed in part upholding the order passed by the District Forum and directing the complainant to execute reconveyance deed in respect of  

F.A.No.1065 of 2009 is allowed.