Order No.6
Dt.16.5.2016
This is a complaint made by Smt. Anita Ghosh, wife of Sri Ramdas Ghosh and Sri Abhirup Ghosh, son of Sri Ramdas Ghosh of 8/A, Baghajatin, E-Block, East, Patuli, Kolkata – 700086, against Smt. Dulali Sarkar, Hashi Biswas and 7 others. Praying for execution and registration of sale deed in favour of Complainant and to pay Rs.3,00,000/- as compensation for harassment both mental and physical.
Facts mentioned in the complaint is that Complainant was in search of a flat and was approached by OPs and entered into an agreement for one flat situated on the 2nd floor measuring about 750 sq.ft.
OP No.1 to 7 are legal heirs of landlord and No.8 & 9 are the constituted attorney of OP No.1 to 7 who constructed the multi-storied building.
Complainant agreed to purchase the flat at a consideration of Rs.12,00,000/- and as per term paid the money to the OPs. But OP No.8 & 9 being developer did not register the deed even after getting full consideration money. Complainant knew that land-owner expired on 7.10.2012. On the death of land-owner the power of attorney in favour of developer expired and so developer did not register the flat in favour of Complainant.
Accordingly, the case is filed for making a registered deed in favour of the Complainant by OPs.
On perusal of record, it appears that on 12.4.2016 OP No.8 & 9 filed affidavit-in-chief. On perusal of this it appears that they have expressed their inability to make deed due to the death of land-owner. They have also stated that they are agreeable to execute the sale deed. If the legal heirs of land-owner give power of attorney.
Decision with reasons.
Complainant filed affidavit-in-chief to substantiate the allegation and also filed Xerox copy of agreement for sale.
On perusal of the affidavit-in-chief, it appears that Complainant has asserted the facts mentioned in complaint petition. Further, on perusal of Xerox copy of agreement for sale it appears that there was an agreement between Complainant, developer and land-owner for sale of flat mentioned in schedule B. Further, it appears that on payment of consideration money the OPs are required to make a deed of conveyance in favour of Complainant. This agreement is dt.7.12.2011. Further, it appears that this agreement is signed by the Complainant and developers only. Accordingly, it becomes the bounden duty of developers to make conveyance deed in favour of Complainant. So far as compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- is concerned there is no ground made out in complaint as to why this Rs.3,00,000/- be awarded in favour of Complainant. There is no detailed mentioned of physical and mental harassment by the Complainant. As such, the prayer of Rs.3,00,000/- compensation cannot be allowed.
Hence
O R D E R E D
RBT/CC/115/2016 is allowed on contest against OP No.8 & 9 and ex-parte against other OPs. OP No.8 & 9 are directed to make deed of conveyance of the schedule mentioned property in favour of the Complainant within three months of this order.
RBT/CC/115/2016 stands disposed off.
