DATE OF FILING : 15-07-2013.
DATE OF S/R : 13-08-2013.
DATE OF FINAL ORDER : 13-08-2014.
1. Biharilal Jaiswal,
son of late Sriram Jaiswal,
2. Mrs. Gita Jaiswal,
wife of Sri Biharilal Jaiswal,
both are presently residing at flat no. 2, 1st floor,
at 7/92, Tulsi Mitra Garden Lane, P.S. Shibpur,
District – Howrah,
PIN – 711102. ---------------------------------------------------- COMPLAINANTS.
- Versus -
1. Smt. Sandhya Ghosh,
wife of Sri Am bar Nath Ghosh,
2. Smt. Kabita Ghosh,
wife of Sri Ajoy Ghosh,
both are residing at 6a, Tulsi Mitra Garden Lane,
P.S. Shibpur, District – Howrah,
PIN – 711102.
3. Sri Aloke Kumar Dey,
son of late Kanai Lal Dey,
residing at 11/228, Souterganj, P.S. Goaltuli,
District – Kanpur,
PIN – 208001.
4. Sri Ambar Chatterjee,
son of Sri Sadananda Chatterjee,
residing at 76/2, Ichapur Road, P.O. Kadamtala, P.S. Bantra,
District – Howrah,
PIN – 711101. -----------------------------------------------------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 complainants U/S 12 of the C.P. Act, 1986 wherein the complainants have prayed for direction upon the o.ps. to execute and register the sale deed with respect to the schedule mentioned property in favour of the complainant and to pay compensation to the tune of Rs. 3 lakhs and litigation costs of Rs. 25,000/- as the o.p. nos. 4 & 5 in spite of repeated requests did not cause registration of the same resulting prolonged harassment.
2. The o.p. nos. 1, 2 & 3 in the written version contended interalia that they never realized any money from the complainants. It is the o.p. no. 4 who is solely responsible for the lapse ; that the power of attorney executed in favour of o.p. no. 4 was cancelled on 06-01-2012.
3. The o.p. nos. 4 & 5 in the written version contended interalia that some extra amount for excess land measuring 4 sq. ft. is still pending ; that the registration could not be done for revocation or the power of attorney by the o.p. nos. 1, 2 & 3 on 06-01-2012.
4. 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 complainants are entitled to get any relief as prayed for ?
DECISION WITH REASONS :
5. Both the points are taken up together for consideration. Admittedly the
complainants have paid the entire amount i.e., 5,47,500/- and accordingly the possession of the suit flat was delivered on 29-09-2013. The dispute over the excess area of 4 sq. ft. as raised by the o.p. no. 4 is just a bizarre and appears to us a subterfuge to harass the complainant. If the revocation of the power of attorney by the o.p. nos. 1, 2 & 3 is the responsible factor for non execution of the deed, there is legal provision for overcoming the hurdle. We are, therefore, of the view that this is a fit case where the prayer of the complainant shall allowed. Both the points are accordingly disposed of.
Hence,
O R D E R E D
That the C. C. Case No. 231 of 2013 ( HDF 231 of 2013 ) be and the same is allowed on contest as against the o.ps. with costs.
The O.P. no. 4 be directed to execute and register proper deed of conveyance in favour of the complainants with respect to the schedule mentioned property within 30 days from the date of this order where the o.p. nos. 1, 2 & 3 shall be the confirming party.
The o.p. no. 4 do pay compensation to the tune of Rs. 40,000/- to the complainants for causing mental pain and prolonged harassment together with Rs. 5,000/- as litigation costs.
The complainants are 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.
