FA.No.1754/2005 against CD.No.20/2004 District Consumer Forum,

Between-

Smt.Devendramma at the rate of W/

Occ- Housewife, R/

Makthal

…Appellant/Complainant.

And

Sri

1.The Manager, Sri

   H.No.8-3-3-BCD,   

2.B.V.Raghava

   A/a 36 yrs.

   R/o.H.No.8-3-3-BCD,

3.B.Satyanarayana Singh, S/

   A/a 49 yrs.

   R/o.H.No.8-3-3-BCD,

4.Md.Moin, S/   A/a.44 yrs.

   R/o.H.No.8-3-3-BCD,

5.B.Pratap Reddy, S/

   A/a 46 yrs.

   R/o.H.No.8-3-3-BCD,

6.B.Ram Reddy, S/

   A/a.53 yrs.

   R/o.H.No.8-3-3-BCD,

…Respondents/FA.No.1755/2005 against CD.No.23/2004 District Consumer Forum,

Between-

B.Maheshwara Singh, S/

A/a 25 yrs.

R/o.H.No.2-28, Buddharam Village,

…Appellant/Complainant.

And

Sri

1.The Manager, Sri

   H.No.8-3-3-BCD,   

2.B.V.Raghava

   A/a 36 yrs.

   R/o.H.No.8-3-3-BCD,

3.B.Satyanarayana Singh, S/

   A/a 49 yrs.

   R/o.H.No.8-3-3-BCD,

4.Md.Moin, S/   A/a.44 yrs.

   R/o.H.No.8-3-3-BCD,

5.B.Pratap Reddy, S/

   A/a 46 yrs.

   R/o.H.No.8-3-3-BCD,

6.B.Ram Reddy, S/

   A/a.53 yrs.

   R/o.H.No.8-3-3-BCD,

…Respondents/FA.No.1756/2005 against CD.No.26/2004 District Consumer Forum  Between-

S.Raju, S/A/a.28 yrs.

Buddharam Village,

Gopalpet

…Appellant/Complainant.

And

Sri

1.The Manager, Sri

   H.No.8-3-3-BCD,   

2.B.V.Raghava

   A/a 36 yrs.

   R/o.H.No.8-3-3-BCD,

3.B.Satyanarayana Singh, S/

   A/a 49 yrs.

   R/o.H.No.8-3-3-BCD,

4.Md.Moin, S/   A/a.44 yrs.

   R/o.H.No.8-3-3-BCD,

5.B.Pratap Reddy, S/

   A/a 46 yrs.

   R/o.H.No.8-3-3-BCD,

6.B.Ram Reddy, S/

   A/a.53 yrs.

   R/o.H.No.8-3-3-BCD,

…Respondents/FA.No.1757/2005 against CD.No.28/2004 District Consumer Forum,

Between-

B.Goverdhan Singh, S/A/a 30 yrs.

Wanaparthy,

…Appellant/Complainant.

And

Sri

1.The Manager, Sri

   H.No.8-3-3-BCD,   

2.B.V.Raghava

   A/a 36 yrs.

   R/o.H.No.8-3-3-BCD,

3.B.Satyanarayana Singh, S/

   A/a 49 yrs.

   R/o.H.No.8-3-3-BCD,

4.Md.Moin, S/   A/a.44 yrs.

   R/o.H.No.8-3-3-BCD,

5.B.Pratap Reddy, S/

   A/a 46 yrs.

   R/o.H.No.8-3-3-BCD,

6.B.Ram Reddy, S/

   A/a.53 yrs.

   R/o.H.No.8-3-3-BCD,

…Respondents/FA.No.1758/2005 against CD.No.29/2004 District Consumer Forum,

Between-

Boya A/a.38 yrs.

Mahadevenpet, Mahabubnagar Dist.

…Appellant/Complainant.

And

Sri

1.The Manager, Sri

   H.No.8-3-3-BCD,   

2.B.V.Raghava

   A/a 36 yrs.

   R/o.H.No.8-3-3-BCD,

3.B.Satyanarayana Singh, S/

   A/a 49 yrs.

   R/o.H.No.8-3-3-BCD,

4.Md.Moin, S/   A/a.44 yrs.

   R/o.H.No.8-3-3-BCD,

5.B.Pratap Reddy, S/

   A/a 46 yrs.

   R/o.H.No.8-3-3-BCD,

6.B.Ram Reddy, S/

   A/a.53 yrs.

   R/o.H.No.8-3-3-BCD,

…Respondents/FA.No.1759/2005 against CD.No.30/2004 District Consumer Forum,

Between-

Boya A/a.27 yrs.

Mahadevenpet, Mahabubnagar Dist.

…Appellant/Complainant.

And

Sri

1.The Manager, Sri

   H.No.8-3-3-BCD,   

2.B.V.Raghava

   A/a 36 yrs.

   R/o.H.No.8-3-3-BCD,

3.B.Satyanarayana Singh, S/

   A/a 49 yrs.

   R/o.H.No.8-3-3-BCD,

4.Md.Moin, S/   A/a.44 yrs.

   R/o.H.No.8-3-3-BCD,

5.B.Pratap Reddy, S/

   A/a 46 yrs.

   R/o.H.No.8-3-3-BCD,

6.B.Ram Reddy, S/

   A/a.53 yrs.

   R/o.H.No.8-3-3-BCD,

…Respondents/ 

Counsel for the Appellant                  -  Counsel for the Respondents           -

                                                             R.1, R.2, R.5 and R.6 served.

QUORUM  THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE D.APPA RAO, HON’BLE PRESIDENT,

SMT.M.SHREESHA

AND

SRI G.BHOOPATHI REDDY, HON’BLE MALE MEMBER.

FRIDAY, THE FIRST DAY OF AUGUST,

TWO THOUSAND EIGHT.

Common Oral Order (Per

-------

Heard both sides. Since all these appeals relate to the very same parties and the facts involved are also similar, we intend to dispose of these appeals by way of common order.

1.         The complainants in CD.No.20, 23, 26, 28, 29 and 30 of 2004 preferred these appeals against the orders of the District Consumer Forum,    Complaints against opposite parties 4 to 6 were dismissed.

2.         The case of the complainants in brief is that opposite parties 2 to 6 are partners and opposite party No.1 was manager of a venture by name   Opposite parties 1 to 3 purchased land situated at   In addition to the said payment, they had also to pay Rs.1  The scheme commences from August, 1998 and ends in June, 2003.  Accordingly, they paid the amounts besides registration charges.  Opposite parties 1 to 3 have also issued receipts and promised to execute the registered sale deeds within fifteen days.  When the complainants insisted for execution of registered sale deeds, the opposite   1 to 3 informed that the administration of firm was changed from them to opposite party No.4, and the venture was renamed as Baba   When they approached opposite party No.4 for registration of the plots, he postponed on one reason or other.  Thereupon, they issued registered legal notices for which opposite party No.3 refused to register plots on the ground that the land stands in the name of opposite parties 4 to 6 and they are liable to register the plots.  When they approached opposite parties 4 to 6, they refused to register the plots, and therefore, the complaints were filed seeking direction to opposite parties 1 to 6 to register plots in their

3.         Opposite parties 1, 2, 5 and 6 remained  

           He denied that opposite parties 2 to 6 were partners of the firm.  He admitted that opposite party No.1 is manager and opposite parties 2 to 4 are the partners and opposite parties 5 and 6 are land owners.   He admitted that the complainants had joined as members in the scheme and paid amounts as alleged and for which they (opposite party 3) issued receipts.  When the complainants had approached them, they informed that they have transferred the venture in   He along with opposite party No.2 purchased the property from opposite parties 5 and 6 on 26.01.1998 under agreement of sale and floated   They collected amounts for development of land, plotting, advertisement, etc. On 02.01.1999 opposite party No.4 along with opposite parties 5 and 6 approached opposite parties 2 and 3 and asked them to hand over the scheme with members to opposite party No.4.  In a meeting   the same was agreed and agreement dt.06.02.1999 was executed in   Accordingly opposite parties 5 and 6 executed registered sale deed dt.06.05.1999 after taking sale consideration.  In fact he registered plots to some members.  He did not pay any amount to them.   Therefore, opposite party No.4 was alone liable to register the plots in   He prayed that the complaints be dismissed against them.

5.         Opposite party No.4 filed separate counter alleging that the complainants were not entitled to any of the   He was not a partner nor nothing to do with the transactions between the complainants and opposite parties 1 to 3.  He never received any amounts.  The complainants had never approached him for registration of the plots.  The receipts that were filed by the complainants were signed by opposite party No.3.  He did not affix his signature.  The documents that were filed by the complainants are purely concocted documents.  He gave correct reply to the notice issued by them.  Opposite parties 2 to 3 are habituated in starting housing schemes and after getting large amounts from public they are winding up.  The receipts issued by them were in 1998 and 1999 and the complaint was filed in 2004.  The complaint is barred by limitation.    At any rate, he was not liable to execute the sale deeds or pay the amounts, and therefore, prayed for dismissal of the complaints with exemplary costs.

6.         The complainants in proof of their case filed their affidavits and documents, Exs.A.1 to A.6.  Opposite party No.3 filed his affidavit and documents, Exs.B.1 to B.11, while opposite party No.4 filed his affidavit and documents, Exs.B.12 to B.22.  The District Forum after considering the evidence placed on record opined that there is no evidence to show that opposite party No.4 was acting as a managing partner along with opposite parties 1 to 3 in Sri   There is no proof that any amount was paid to opposite party No.4 nor liable to execute sale deeds in   Since opposite party No.5 and 6 are land owners, they are not liable to register the plots or to refund the amounts to the complainants.  Therefore, the complaints were allowed against opposite parties 1 to 3 with a direction to refund Rs.38,800/- to each complainant with interest at 18 Percent per annum together with costs of Rs.500/-.  The complaints were dismissed against opposite parties 4 to 6. 

7.         Aggrieved by the said orders, the complainants preferred these appeals contending that the District Forum did not appreciate the facts in correct perspective.  It ought to have appreciated that by virtue of execution of Exs.B.3 and B.4, the opposite party No.4 stepped into the shoes of opposite parties 1 to 3 and as such opposite party No.4 was liable to execute the sale deeds in their   They prayed that these appeals be allowed directing opposite party No.4 to execute the sale deeds in their  

8.         It is an undisputed fact that opposite parties 5 and 6 are the owners of land situated at   It is also not in dispute that opposite parties 1 to 3 floated a partnership firm under the name and style of ‘  They sold plots after laying out plots after naming it as ‘  Ex.B.6 is brochure and Ex.B.7 is the layout plan of ‘   Ex.B.8 is the layout plan of ‘Baba   Opposite parties 1 to 3 have agreed to sell 150 square yards of plot, to each of the complainants on payment of Rs.33  In fact they have paid some of the   The fact is that opposite party No.3 has received the entire consideration evidenced under Ex.B.9 receipt. 

9.         The case of the complainants is that when they approached opposite parties 1 to 3, who were partners to execute the sale deeds as agreed, they have informed that they have transferred their interest in the firm in he would execute registered sale deeds in their  

       The fact that opposite party No.4 is also a partner in the firm consisting of opposite parties 1 to 3 is not evidenced by any document.  There is no evidence to show that opposite parties have transferred the interest in     There is no correspondence between opposite parties 1 to 3 and opposite party No.4 to show that opposite party No.4 has acted as a partner along with opposite parties 1 to 3. When the allegation that it was a partnership firm and if really opposite party No.4 was also a partner, the complainants could have filed the certified copy obtained from the Registrar of Firms to show that opposite party No.4 acted as a partner.  We may state herein that no affidavit of any of the partners was filed to show that opposite party No.4 had acted as partner or that they have transferred their interest in

11.       Opposite parties 1 to 3 in order to prove that they have transferred their interest relied on Ex.B.4, the agreement dated 19.09.2000 to show that they have transferred their interest in   Opposite party No.4 not only in his counter but also in his affidavit denied the execution categorically.  He insisted for production of originals of those documents in order to send them to   The complainants and opposite parties 1 to 3 for the reasons best known to them did not file the original of Ex.B.4 to rebut the contention of opposite party No.4 in this regard. 

       In fact in the affidavit evidence of opposite party No.3 the fact that the signatures on Ex.B.4 pertain to the opposite party No.4 was not even mentioned.  He did not traverse any of these facts alleged by opposite party No.4 in this regard.  They relied Ex.B.11, a Xerox copy of receipt said to   been issued by opposite party No.4 in   When opposite party No.4 disputes the genuineness, the original was not filed nor the affidavit of the member to show that Ex.B.11 was given.

13.       The complainants have issued registered notices to opposite parties 1 to 3 directing them to execute the registered sale deeds.  Importantly, no registered notice was issued to opposite party No.4 directing him to execute the registered sale deeds in their   No reason whatsoever.   More so when opposite party No.3 has given a reply in Ex.A.6 mentioning that they have transferred their title in   When there is absolutely no evidence, whatsoever that opposite party No.4 has anything to do with the transactions, the District Forum was the opposite party No.4 could be directed to execute the sale deeds in their   Evidently, opposite parties 5 and 6 had parted their title in   It is not known as to why opposite parties 5 and 6 were also   In view of the disputes between opposite parties 1 to 3 and opposite party No.4, the question of directing opposite party No.4 to execute the registered sale deeds will not arise.    Evidently, opposite parties 1 to 3 are the owners by virtue of registered sale deeds obtained in their   In view of the above discussions, the District Forum has directed opposite parties 1 to 3 to repay the amounts received by them under the agreements to the complainants.  We do not see any   facts or law in this regard. We do not see any merits in these appeals. 

14.       In the result, these appeals are dismissed. 

PRESIDENT               LADY MEMBER               MALE MEMBER

Dt-01.08.2008.

Vvr.