This is a complaint filed by (1) Smt. Rubi Dutta, wife of Sri Anup Kr. Dutta & (2) Sri Anup Kr. Dutta, son of late Ramani Mohan Dutta, both are residing at 2/82, Sucheta Nagar, P.O.-Haltu, P.S.-Garfa, Kolkata-700 078 against (i) Smt. Indrani Mukherjee, wife of Sri Subrata Kr. Mukherjee, residing at Block-2G, Ramlal Bazar Road, P.S.-Garfa, Kolkata-700 078, OP No.1 and (ii) Sri Samir Kr. Mukherjee, son of Late Sushil Kr. Mukherjee, residing at Block 2C, Ramlal Bazar Road, P.S.- Garfa, Kolkata-700 078, praying for (a)an order directing the OP to execute and register sale deed in the name of the Complainant after receiving consideration money and (b) an order restraining the OP from transferring, alienating the schedule property to any third party and (c) for other reliefs.

            Facts in brief are that Complainants are law abiding citizen, OP No.1 is absolute owner and possessor of a land measuring 2 kattah 13 chittakas and 16 sq.ft. more or less lying and situated at Mouza-Garfa, comprised in R.S.Dag No.1991 under R.S.Khatian No.142, Touzi No.10 and 12 R.S.No.2, J.L.No.19. OP No.1 entered into an agreement with OP No.2 on 7.6.2013 for raising a multi-storied building. OP No.1 also executed and registered a General Power of Attorney in favour of OP No.2. Thereafter OP No.2 obtained a plan from Kolkata Municipal Corporation. OP No.1 entered into an agreement with the Complainant on 5.7.2015 to sale a flat measuring 700 sq.ft at a total consideration of Rs.16,40,000/-. OP No.2 now intends to sale the aforesaid flat on higher rate to a new purchaser namely Sukanto Halder and received a sum of Rs.9,00,000/-.

            Complainants are bona fide purchasers. OP No.1 has no right to sale the aforesaid flat to any other person. So, Complainant filed this case.

            On the basis of above facts, Complaint was admitted and OP appeared. But did not file written version. So, the case was heard ex-parte.

Decision with reasons

            Complainants have filed affidavit-in-chief wherein they have reiterated the facts mentioned in the complaint petition.

            Main point for determination is whether Complainant is entitled to the reliefs as prayed for.

            On perusal of Xerox copy of the agreement for sale, it appears that this agreement was entered on 5.7.2015. Further, on perusal of the Xerox copy of agreement for sale, it appears that the signature of the Complainant is on the page No.11 only and other pages have not been signed by any of the parties. Further, it appears that no receipt for payment of money has been filed. Only in the Xerox copy of the agreement for sale, it appears that about Rs.4,50,000/- has been paid. It is very surprising that Complainants have not mentioned about payment of the money either in advance or actual in the Complaint petition.

            Accordingly this complaint though was heard ex-parte, raises doubt in the mind of this Forum that how much money was paid by the Complainant to the OP, despite the fact that the allegations remain unrebutted and unchallenged, the prayer of the Complainant for an order directing the OP to execute and register the sale deed cannot be made because the total consideration money has not been paid as yet and no original receipt has been filed by the Complainant.

            Similarly, when the main prayer cannot be allowed the question of allowing other prayers does not arise.

            In the circumstances, we are of the view that Complainant failed to prove the allegations mentioned in the complaint.

Hence ,

ordered

            CC/368/2016 is dismissed on ex-parte.