Petitioner had purchased a flat jointly with his wife.  Later on, dispute arose between him and his wife.  Petitioner, alleging that he alone had paid all the instalments, demanded possession from the builder.  The builder, in order to avoid any dispute with the wife of the petitioner, asked the petitioner to get the flat jointly in his name with his wife.  Petitioner, being aggrieved, filed the complaint before the District Forum.

          District Forum allowed the complaint, aggrieved against which, the builder and the wife of the petitioner filed separate appeals before the State Commission.  State Commission allowed the appeals and held that questions of title cannot be decided under the Consumer Protection Act.  That the petitioner would be well advised to approach the civil court for getting the title decided.  State Commission also came to the conclusion that there was no deficiency on the part of the builder, as the builder had never refused to hand-over the possession. 

          We agree with the view taken by the State Commission that the question of title can be decided by the civil court only.  The State Commission has rightly directed the petitioner to approach the civil court.  We also agree with the view taken by the State Commission that there is no deficiency on the part of the builder/promoter as the builder has never refused to hand-over the possession.  The only condition put forth by the builder is that the petitioner shall get the registration in the joint names with his wife and jointly get the possession and discharge the builder of his obligations. 
Dismissed.

Petitioner is put at liberty to seek relief from the Civil Court along with an application under Section 14 of the Indian Limitation Act for condoning the delay for the time spent before the consumer fora, keeping in mind the observations made by the Supreme Court in Laxmi Engineering Works vs.PSG Industrial Institute – (1995) 3 SCC 583.