DATE OF FILING                    :     07.08.2014.

DATE OF S/R                            :      10.09.2014.

DATE OF FINAL ORDER      :     16.11.2015.

Smt. Maya Maity,

wife of Sri Basudeb Maity

of 10/8, Nilratan Mukherjee Road, P.S. Shibpur,

District Howrah,

PIN 711102. ………………………………………………………… COMPLAINANT.

• Versus   -

Smt. Mala Dalui,

wife of Sri Shyamal Kumar Dalui

of 6/3/1, Harinath Chatterjee Lane, P.S. Shibpur,

Howrah – 711102. ……………………………………………………OPPOSITE PARTY.

 P    R    E     S    E    N     T

 Hon’ble President  :   Shri  B. D.  Nanda,  M.A. ( double ), L.L.M., WBHJS.

 Hon’ble Member      :      Smt. Jhumki Saha.

Hon’ble Member : Shri A.K. Pathak.      

F  I   N   A    L       O   R   D    E     R

1. This is an application U/S 12 of the C.P. Act, 1986 filed by the petitioner, Maya Maity, against the o.p. Mala Dolui, praying for direction upon the o.p. to execute and register the deed of conveyance in favour of the petitioner in the respect of the ‘B’ schedule  mentioned property under ‘A’ Schedule of this case and to pay compensation to the tune of  Rs. 2 lakhs and cost of proceeding of Rs. 10,000/-.    

2. The case of the petitioner is that o.p., Mala Dolui is the owner of the land and building mentioned in the ‘A’ Schedule property situated at 6/3/1, Harinath Chatterjee  Lane, P.S. Shibpur. The o.p. disclosed her intention to sell the 1^st floor of the house measuring 390 sq. ft. with two bed rooms and verandah and one toilet and 40 sq. ft. open terrace clearly mentioned in ‘B’ schedule property at a total consideration of Rs. 2,50,000/- and being interested the petitioner had an agreement with the o.p. to purchase the 1^st floor and an agreement was executed on 02.12.2006 on payment of Rs. 1,10,000/- and later on the petitioner paid  Rs. 38,500/- and thus his total payment was Rs. 1,48,500/-.  The petitioner visited the house of the o.p. and requested him to execute and register the deed but she avoided to do the same.  The petitioner sent legal notice by registered post on several occasions asking the o.p. to execute the deed receiving the rest amount as he has already paid Rs. 1,48,500/-. Hence the case was filed.    

3.        The o.p., Mala Dolui, appeared in the case and filed written version denying the allegations made against her and submitted that the case is neither maintainable nor any cause of action against her because  as per terms of the agreement it is clearly mentioned in the sale agreement that the total consideration was fixed Rs. 2,50,000/- out of which on the date of executing the agreement she received a sum of Rs. 1,10,000/- and it was further agreed as per terms and conditions of agreement specifically  at para 1 & 2 that since January, 2007 the petitioner would pay Rs. 1,000/- per month to the o.p. and since December, 2007 the petitioner would pay Rs. 4,000/ 5,000/-  to the o.p. and the due amount of  Rs. 1,40,000/- being fully paid the o.p. would execute and register the sale deed in favour of the petitioner. The petitioner paid Rs. 38,500/- and then stopped payment.  Thus it is clear from the averment of the terms and conditions of the sale agreement that the petitioner would complete the dues of Rs. 1,40,000/- and out of which she had paid Rs. 38,500/- and thus she had violated the terms of the contract. In the instant case the petitioner also suppressed material facts like terms and conditions of payment as mentioned in the sale agreement and thus for such suppression of material fact and violation of terms and conditions of contract she is not entitled to get the relief as submitted by the ld. counsel for the o.p.  

4.        This Forum scrutinized all the documents and submissions of ld. counsel for both sides and found parties truth in the statement of the petitioner that in total she paid Rs. 1,48,500/- and also this Forum found that she stopped payment as is also stated by her in her petition of complaint as well as affidavit in chief which is nothing but a gross violation of the terms of agreement. One party to a contract disobeys the terms of the contract then such a party cannot claim any relief under a court of law because both the parties in the contract have the same rights and liabilities and bound by the same.

In view of above, this Forum finds that the petitioner violated the terms of the contract and so she is not entitled to the relief as prayed for.

            It the result the application failes.

            Court fee paid is correct.       

      Hence,

    O     R     D      E      R      E        D

           That the C. C. Case No. 443 of 2014 ( HDF 443  of 2014 )  be and the same is dismissed on contest but no order is passed as to compensation.  

      Supply the copies of the order to the parties, free of costs.

DICTATED  &    CORRECTED

BY   ME.  

  (    B. D.  Nanda   )                                              

  President,  C.D.R.F., Howrah.