Sukumar Sinha,

son of late Chandra Kanta Sinha,

resides at 2, Bhuban Mohiny Road,

presently at 6/1/4, Kaipukur Lane, P.S. Sibpur,

District – Howrah.--------------------------------------------------------------- COMPLAINANT.

-          Versus   -

1.      Smt. Puspa Rani Mal,

w/o. late Tustu Pada Mal.

2.      Smt. Purnima Haldar,

w/o. Sri Sailen Halder.

3.      Smt. Chabi Mal,

w/o. late Swapan Mal,

all reside at 2, Bhuban Mohini Road, P.S. Shibpur, District – Howrah, PIN  – 711102.

4.      Smt. Pratima Dalui,

wife of Sri Madhusudan Dalui, Village – Srikrishnapur, P.O. Bornan, P.S. Kolaghat, District – Midnapur.

5.      Smt. Anima Mukherjee,

wife of Sri Jhantu Mukherjee, Village – Dharsa Harishtala, P.O. G.I.P. Colony, P.S. Jagacha, District – Howrah.

6.      Smt. Nilima Dalui,

w/o. Sri Radha Nath Dalui, village – SriKrishnapur, P.O. Bornan, P.S. Kolaghat, District – Midnapur.

7.      Smt. Bela Haldar,

w/o. Sri Basudeb Haldar of 2, Bhuban Mohini Road, P.S. Shbpur, District – Howrah, PIN – 711 102. -----------------------------------------------------OPPOSITE PARTIES.

                                                P    R    E     S    E    N     T

President     :     Shri T.K. Bhattacharya, M.A. LL.B. WBHJS.

Member      :      Shri P.K. Chatterjee.

Member       :     Smt. Jhumki Saha.

                                                 F  I   N   A    L       O   R   D    E     R

1.                  The instant case was filed by complainant, Sukumar Sinha,  U/S 12 of the C.P.

Act, 1986 wherein the complainant has  prayed for direction upon the o.ps. to deliver possession of the ‘A’ schedule property and to execute deed of conveyance with respect to the same as the O.Ps. in spite of receiving the major portion of the consideration money with respect to the 120 sq. ft. garage did not execute the same.  

2.                  The o.ps. in the written version contended interalia that there is no deficiency

in service on the part of the O.Ps. nor they did practice unfair trade against the complainant who himself did not comply with the terms of the agreement.  

3.                  Upon pleadings of both parties two points arose for determination :

i)          Is there any deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps.  ?

ii)                  Whether the complainant is entitled to get any relief as prayed for ? 

DECISION  WITH   REASONS      :

4.      Both the points are  taken up together for consideration. On scrutiny of the

enclosures it is evident that the O.P. on behalf of all co-sharers executed the deed of agreement on 13-01-2010 with respect to the ‘A’ schedule property @ Rs. 1100/- per sq. ft. and the total consideration money was settled to be Rs. 1,32,000/-. It is further evident that Rs.52,000/- out of the total consideration money paid to the O.Ps. on different dates and subsequently a cheque was issued in favour of the O.Ps. with respect to an amount of Rs. 37,000/- which was refused by the O.Ps.  Therefore, it is palpable that the complainant is still willing to comply with the terms of the agreement and the O.Ps. cannot have any right to violate the terms of the agreement unilaterally. To obey the terms of the agreement the O.Ps. are bound to execute the deed of conveyance with respect to the ‘A’ schedule property. 

      Therefore, this is a fit case where the prayer of the complainant shall be allowed. Both the points are accordingly disposed of. 

      Hence,

O     R     D      E      R      E        D

      That the C. C. Case No. 163 of 2012 ( HDF 163 of 2012 )  be  allowed on contest with  costs  against  the O.Ps. 

      The O.Ps. be directed to execute the deed of agreement with respect to the ‘A’ schedule property within  30 days from the date of this order after receiving the balance amount.

      The o.ps. be further directed to pay a compensation of Rs. 20,000/- to the complainant  for causing mental pain, agony and prolonged harassment.

      The complainant is  also entitled to a litigation cost of Rs. 5,000/- from the O.Ps.

      The complainant is at liberty to put the decree into execution after expiry of the appeal period.

      Supply the copies of the order to the parties, as per rule.

DICTATED  &    CORRECTED

BY   ME.  

  (    T.K. Bhattacharya  )                                              

  President,  C.D.R.F.,Howrah.