BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, IDUKKI Dated this the 30th day of January, 2009
Present: SRI.LAIJU RAMAKRISHNAN PRESIDENT SMT.SHEELA JACOB MEMBER SMT.BINDU SOMAN MEMBER
C.C No.145/2008 Between Complainant : Joy George, Kuzhikuthiyaniyil House, Erattayar P.O, Kattappana Via, Idukki District. (By Adv: V.V.Sunny) And Opposite Parties : 1. P.V.Joykutty, Pathippallil House, Erattayar P.O, Kattappana Via, Idukki District. (By Adv: V.C.Sebastian)) 2. Rarichen George, Kuzhikuthiyaniyil House, Kanchiyar P.O, Ayyappankovil Village, Idukki District. (By Adv: Sijimon.K.Augustine)
O R D E R SRI.LAIJU RAMAKRISHNAN(PRESIDENT)
The petitioner's father was expired, so the petitioner and his relatives decided to partition the property of his father in LA No.817/74 and LA No.472/75 in Ayyappankovil Village as Thandaper No.1235/04. The partition deed was written on 27.10.2007 at the office of the Ist opposite party who is the licensed document writer. The partition deed was registered as 2770/07 in Sub Registrar Office, Kattappana on the same day itself. The original partition deed and 2 copies were also registered for keeping with the complainant and his brothers. Fees for the registration was shared by the complainant and one of the registered copy is entitled by the complainant. The 1st opposite party told to the complainant that the copy would be given to him at the time when it obtaines from the SRO. As per the assurance of the Ist opposite party, the complainant several times approached the Ist opposite party for getting the copy of the registered partition deed. But the Ist opposite party never issued the same to the complainant. When the complainant enquired the matter in the SRO, Kattappana, it is revealed that the Ist opposite party has received the original sale deed and its registered copies. But the Ist opposite party told that all the documents were given to the 2nd opposite party. The complainant when approached the 2nd opposite party, the 2nd opposite party told that it is with the Ist opposite party. The complainant has shared the fee of the partition deed and so he is entitled to get the same. The petition is filed for the deficiency in service of the opposite parties.
2. The Ist opposite party filed written version and admitted that this opposite party has prepared the partition deed as alleged by the complainant. But the Ist opposite party never received any consideration for writing the partition deed from the complainant. All the charges for documentation were paid by the 2nd opposite party who is the brother of the complainant. All required documents, prescribed fee and witnesses were also produced by the 2nd opposite party and the 2nd opposite party duly entrusted the Ist opposite party for preparing the documents. The Ist opposite party prepared the same and produced before the Sub Registrar and it was duly registered. As per the Registration Act, it is not the duty of the document writer to receive the document from the SRO and distribute the same to the parties. But as per the authorization of the 2nd opposite party, the Ist opposite party approached the SRO for the 2nd opposite party and received the documents from there and the registered copies were also duly returned to the 2nd opposite party. The Ist opposite party understood that the complainant and the 2nd opposite party are in enmity because of some family problems, because of that enmity, the case is filed against the 2nd opposite party, so there is no deficiency in the part of the Ist opposite party.
3. The 2nd opposite party filed a written version stating that there is no consumer relationship between the 2nd opposite party and the complainant. No fees or consideration was received from the complainant by the 2nd opposite party who is the brother of the complainant. The complainant never paid any amount for preparing the documents for partition. As a younger brother, the 2nd opposite party paid all the required fees for preparing the partition deed. After the death of the father, the properties and encumbrance of the family were partitioned as per the decision taken by the family members. There was a loan of Rs.4 lakhs from the Malanadu Co-operative Bank in the property. The complainant and the 2nd opposite party were in dispute with some amount of loan and they were in enmical terms. So this petition is field against this opposite party without any reason. The registered copy of the original sale deed was given to the complainant by the Ist opposite party at the same day when it received from the SRO itself. 4. The point for consideration is whether there was any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties, and if so, for what relief the complainant is entitled to ? 5. The evidence consists of the oral testimony of PWs 1 and 2 and Exts.P1 to P3 marked on the side of the complainant and the oral testimony of DW1 and Exts.R1 to R3 marked on the side of the opposite parties. 6. The POINT :- The complaint is filed for getting back the registered copy of the partition deed prepared for the complainant and his brothers. The complainant was examined as PW1. PW1 deposed that he has paid Rs.9,000/- to the Ist opposite party as fee for the partition deed. It is the duty of the Ist opposite party to obtain documents to the complainant. Ext.P1 is the copy of the partition deed executed between the complainant and his brothers. As per the Ist opposite party, it is not the duty of the Ist opposite party to receive the documents from the SRO, the entire amount or fee for the registration was paid by the 2nd opposite party and the 2nd opposite party entrusted the Ist opposite party to prepare the document. So the original and copies of the documents were received by the Ist opposite party on request of the 2nd opposite party and it was returned to the 2nd opposite party. As per the Registration Act, 1908, a person who produces the original documents for registration or his authorized agent can receive the documents after registration. The Ist opposite party received the same and given to the 2nd opposite party, who paid the fee for the same to the Ist opposite party. The complainant never paid any fee or consideration. The complainant never produced any evidence to prove that he has paid consideration for the same. So there is no consumer relationship between the 2nd opposite party and the complainant. As per cross examination of the learned counsel of the opposite party, the complainant admitted that there is a litigation suit pending in Kattappana Sub Court against the 2nd opposite party. There is no reason to disbelieve the version of 2nd opposite party that the 2nd opposite party and the complainant are in enimical terms, so we find no deficiency from the part of the opposite parties and the petition is dismissed. Hence the petition is dismissed. No cost is ordered against the petitioner. Pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 30th day of January, 2009 Sd/- SRI.LAIJU RAMAKRISHNAN(PRESIDENT) Sd/- SMT.SHEELA JACOB(MEMBER)
Sd/- SMT.BINDU SOMAN(MEMBER)
APPENDIX Depositions : On the side of Complainant : PW1 - Joy George On the side of Opposite Parties : Nil Exhibits: On the side of Complainant: Ext.P1 - True copy of Sale Deed On the side of Opposite Parties : Nil
| 
