BEFORE THE DISTRICT FORUM: KURNOOL
Present: Sri. T.Sundara Ramaiah , B.Com B.L., President
And
Sri. M.Krishna Reddy , M.Sc., M.Phil., Male Member
Friday the 25th day of February , 2011
C.C.No 144/10
Between:
Shaik Noorulla, S/o Shaik Murthja, Muslim,
R/o D.No.5/24/83, Estern Colony, Khader Hotel, Sunnipenta Post,
Srisailam Mandal, Kurnool District.
…Complainant
-Vs-
N.Subramanyam, S/o N.Sanjeeva Rayudu,
R/o D.No.45/139,Narasima Reddy Nagar,Kurnool.
…Opposite ParTy
This complaint is coming on this day for orders in the presence of Sri S.Sivaramakrishna Prasad, Advocate, for complainant, and Sri T.Siva Kumar, Advocate, for opposite party and upon perusing the material papers on record, the Forum made the following.
ORDER
(As per Sri. T.Sundara Ramaiah, President)
C.C. No. 144/10
1. This complaint is filed under section 12 of C. P. Act, 1986 praying:-
(a) To direct the opposite party to register a House Plot in the name of the complainant in Sy.No.70H, 70C, 70D, 109 & 110 within the Joharapuram Grampanchyat limits of Kurnool District,
- To award a sum of Rs.75,000/- for causing mental agony.
- To pay cost of the complaint;
And
(d) To grant such other relief or reliefs as the Hon’ble Forum deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.
2. The case of the complainant in brief is as under:- In the year 1985 the opposite party started a Housing Scheme under the name and style Sri Chandra Priya Estate, Kurnool. The complainant has joined as a member in the said scheme. As per the terms and conditions of the scheme every member should pay a sum of Rs.125/- for 48 months. The complainant paid 12 installments by 11-04-1987. On 11-04-1987 a dip was conducted by the opposite party. The complainant became the beneficiary in the said dip. The opposite party executed agreement of sale in favour of the complainant on 06-06-1987 under the agreement the opposite party agreed to execute a registered sale deed immediately after the closure of the scheme. After the closure of the scheme the complainant approached the opposite party but, the opposite party did not execute the registered sale deed. On 02-04-2010 the opposite party manhandled the complainant. Then the complainant approached the police. No action was taken by the police against the opposite party. The opposite party filed a civil suit for a declaration. The opposite party adopted unfair trade practice. Hence the complaint.
3. Opposite party filed written version, stating that the complaint is not maintainable. It is admitted that the opposite party along with other partners floated a Housing Scheme under the name and style Sri Chandra Priya Estates, Kurnool. As per the terms and conditions of the scheme each member should pay a sum of Rs.125/- per month for 48 months. The complainant paid 12 installments by 11-04-1987. On 11-04-1987 the dip was conducted and the complainant became a beneficiary in the said dip. The opposite party informed the same to the complainant and executed an agreement of the sale in favour of the complainant on 06-06-1987. The complainant did not turn up for about 30 years. He did not demand the opposite party to register the plot. The opposite party filed a suit against the complainant in O.S.258/2010 on the file of Second Additional Junior Civil Judge, Kurnool for declaration that the complainant is not entitled for registration of plot. The said suit is pending. The value of the land has been increased. The opposite party stopped the business. No legal notice was issued by the complainant calling upon the opposite party to execute a register sale deed. As the Civil suit filed by the opposite party for declaration is pending in Civil Court this Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. The complainant is barred by limitation. The complaint is liable to be dismissed.
4. On behalf of the complainant Ex.A1 to A3 are marked and sworn affidavit of the complainant is filed. On behalf of the opposite party sworn affidavit of the opposite party is filed.
5. Both sides filed written arguments.
6. The points that arise for consideration are:
- Whether there is deficiency of service on the part of the Opposite Party?
- Whether the complainant is entitled to the reliefs as prayed for?
(c) To what relief?
7. POINT No.1 & 2:- Admittedly the opposite party started Housing Scheme under the name and style Sri Chandra Priya Estates, Kurnool Town. As per the terms and conditions of the scheme every member should pay a sum of Rs.125/- per month for 48 months. Admittedly the complainant joined as a member in the said scheme and paid 12 installments by 11-04-1987. The complainant became beneficiary in the dip that was conducted by the opposite party on 11-04-1987. It is further admitted that the opposite party executed an agreement of sale in favour of the complainant on 06-06-1987 agreeing to register the plot immediately after the closure of the scheme. It is also admitted that the opposite party filed a suit against the complainant in O.S. 258/2010 on the file of Second Additional Junior Civil Judge, Kurnool for declaration that the complainant is entitled for registration of the plot.
8. It is the case of the complainant that after closure of the scheme he approached the opposite party to execute register sale deed in pursuance of agreement Ex.A1 and that the opposite party refused to execute sale deed. Except the affidavit evidence of the complainant there is no other evidence on record to show that the complainant approached the opposite party immediately after the closure of the scheme and demanded the opposite party to execute a register sale deed. No demand notice was given by the complainant to the opposite party asking him to execute a register sale deed in pursuance of Ex.A1 agreement of sale. Admittedly the complainant gave police report against the opposite party in the year 2010. The police did not take any action. The opposite party filed a suit in O.S. 258/2010 on the file of Second Additional Junior Civil Judge, Kurnool regarding the same matter. When the said suit is pending the complainant filed the present complaint. In the Civil Court both parties have to adduce evidence. Whether the complainant is entitled for registration of plot in his name basing on Ex.A1, has to be decided by the Civil Court after going through the evidence to be let in by both parties. As the suit filed by the opposite party against the complainant is pending in the Civil Court, we think it is not just and proper to grant any relief to the complainant at this stage. The complainant instead of agitating his rights in the Civil Court unnecessarily filed the present complaint in order to drag on the civil case pending. At this stage we see no merits in the present complaint.
9. In result, the complaint is dismissed without cost. The observations made in this order do not bind the Civil Court in which O.S.258/2010 is pending.
Dictated to the stenographer, transcribed by her, corrected and pronounced by us in the open bench on this the 25th day of February, 2011.
Sd/- Sd/-
MALE MEMBER PRESIDENT
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
Witnesses Examined
For the complainant: Nil For the opposite party : Nill
List of exhibits marked for the complainant:-
Ex.A1 Agreement dt.06-06-1987 executed by the opposite party
in favour of the complainant.
Ex.A2 Office copy of summons in OS 258/2010 on the file of Second Addl. Junior Civil Judge Court, Kurnool.
Ex.A3 Plaint copy in O.S.No.258/2010.
List of exhibits marked for the opposite party:- Nill
Sd/- Sd/-
MALE MEMBER PRESIDENT
// Certified free copy communicated under Rule 4 (10) of the
A.P.S.C.D.R.C. Rules, 1987//
Copy to:-
Complainant and Opposite parties
Copy was made ready on :
Copy was dispatched on :
