In the Court of the
Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Unit -I, Kolkata,
8B, Nelie Sengupta Sarani, 4th Floor, Kolkata-700087.
CDF/Unit-I/Case No. 291/ 2011 .
1) Smt. Sujata Bhattacharjee,
16, Charu Chandra Place East, Kolkata-700033. ---------- Complainant
---Versus---
1) Smt. Rajeshwari Haldel (Sharma),
16, Charu Chandra Place, Kolkata-700033. ---------- Opposite Party
Present : Sri Sankar Nath Das, President.
Dr. Subir Kumar Chaudhuri, Member.
Smt. Sharmi Basu, Member
Order No. 20 Dated 31/08/2012.
The petition of complaint has been filed by the complainant Smt. Sujata Bhattacharjee against the o.p. Smt. Rajeshwari Halder (Sharma). The case of the complainant in short is that Smt. Madhumita Sharma was the sole and absolute owner of ALL THAT Premises No.16, & 16A, Charu Chandra Place (East) Police Station - then Tollygunge now Charu Market, Kolkata – 700 033.
Being thus is possession of the aforesaid Premises said Smt. Madhumita Sharma inducted the husband of the complainant as a monthly tenant in respect t of the ground floor at Pemises No.16, Charu Chandra Place (East) Police Station – Tollygunge, Kolkata – 700 033 now Charu Market.
Subsequently said Smt. Madhumita Sharma entered into an agreement with the complainant and her husband to sale the entire ground floor of Premises No. 16, Charu Chandra Place (East) Police Station – Tollygunge, Kolkata – 700 033 now Charu Market at or for a total consideration of Rs.3 lakhs only and in terms of the said agreement the complainant and the husband of the complainant paid Rs.60,000/- only as part of the consideration money and Rs.20,000/- only which was kept as security money with said Smt. Madhumita Sharma was liquidated with the consideration money and accordingly granted receipt of Rs.80,000/- only as part of consideration money.
Unfortunately said Smt. Madhumita Sharma dies on 8.6.04 leaving behind her last Will and Testament in respect of Pemises No.16, Charu Chandra Place (East) Police Station – Tollygunge, Kolkata – 700 033 and by the said last Will said Smt. Madhumita Sharma bequeath the entire property in favour of the o.p. herein.
In terms of the said agreement and in order to discharge her liability as legal heir of said Smt. Madhumita Sharma the o.p. entered into an agreement for sale written in Bengali on 14.5.098 with the complainant in respect to sale the entire ground floor of Pemises No.16, Charu Chandra Place (East) Police Station– Tollygunge, Kolkata–700033 and the consideration money was enhanced to the tune of Rs.3,50,000/- instead of Rs.3,00,000/- and time to time the complainant paid the consideration of Rs.1,85,000/- i.e. Rs.80,000/- to the mother of the o.p. Smt. Madhumita Sharma, since deceased and Rs.1,05,000/- in favour of o.p.
In the said agreement it was agreed and understood by and between the complainant and the o.p. herein that after grant of probate of the last Will of the deceased Smt. Madhumita Sharma the complainants shall pay the balance of the consideration money in favour of the o.p. and simultaneously the o.p. shall execute and register the deed of conveyance in favour of the complainant.
The complainant times without number asked the o.p. whether she obtain grant of probate of the last Will of the said Smt. Madhumita Sharma but for unlawful gain and motive the o.p. avoided the complainant. Finding no other alternative the complainant through her Advocate Sri Subhajit Dutta filed an information slip in the Ld. Court of District Delegate, Alipore, South 24 Parganas came to learn that the probate of the said Will has been granted by the Ld. Court on 18.1.11 in Act XXXIX (Probate Case No.178/09).
In spite of grant of probate of the said Will on 18.1.11 from the Ld. District Delegate at Alipore in Act XXXIX (Probate) Case No.178 of 2009) the o.p. with malafide intention did not disclose the said facts.
The o.p. has failed and neglected to execute and register the deed of conveyance in favour of the complainant. Hence the case.
O.p. did not contest the case by filing w/v and matter was heard ex parte against the sole o.p. accordingly.
Decision with reasons:
We have gone through the pleadings of complainant, evidence and documents in particular and we find that there is no document showing grant of probate which is very vital document to adjudicate the case and in the absence of the same this Forum is not in a position to decide the matter in its proper perception. In result, the case of the complainant fails.
Hence, ordered,
That the instant case stands dismissed ex parte with the liberty to the complainant to file fresh case against o.p. on the self same cause of action by filing certified copy of probate.
Supply free certified copy of this order to the parties free of cost.
