This is a complaint made by one Sri Sadashiv Sharma, son of Late Jagadish Sharma, by faith Hindu by occupation business residing at 2/251 Sree Colony, P.S.- Netaji Nagar, Kolkata-92 against (1) Smt. Shantimoyi Mukherjee, resident of A/53, Baghajatin Colony, P.O.- Regent Estate, P.S.- Jadavpur, Kolkata-32 and (2) Sri Kalyan Roy, son of Sri Kalip0ada Roy, resident of Premises No.12, Bikramgarh P.O. & P.S.-Jadavpur, Kolkata-32, praying for execution of sale deed in the name of the Complainant in respect of the schedule property which is about 120 sq.ft., a shop room, situated at premises No.A/53, Baghajatin Colony, P.S.- Jadavpur, Kolkata-32.

            Facts in brief are that Complainant entered into an agreement with the OP No.2 to purchase a shop room measuring about 120 sq.ft. in the ground floor at premises No.A/53, Baghajatin Colony, P.S.- Jadavpur, Kolkata – 32 on 5.2.2005 on a consideration amount of Rs.1,10,000/-. Complainant paid full consideration money to OP No.2 and OP No.2 signed an agreement. OP No.1 is the land owner who entered into a development agreement on 17.5.2001 with OP No.2. OP No.2 gives possession to the Complainant after one month from the date of signing of the agreement. But, OP No.2 did not make the registration deed. So, Complainant filed this case.

            OP No.1 filed written version and denied all the allegation of the complainant. After denying all the allegations, OP No.1 has prayed for dismissal of this complaint.

            OP No.1 has denied that Complainant paid any money. Further, OP No.1 has stated that agreement for sale is an incomplete agreement and cannot be acted upon. The description of the property both in the schedule of the petition and alleged agreement is void.

            OP No.2 has not contested this case by filing written version.

Decision with reasons :

            Complainant filed affidavit-in-chief to which OP No.1 put questionnaire and Complainant made reply to the questionnaire. Similarly, OP No.1 filed affidavit-in-chief to which Complainant put questionnaire to which OP No.1 made reply.

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

            On perusal of the complaint, it appears that one and only relief sought by the Complainant is registration of the sale deed in favour of the Complainant. In this regard OP No.1 has denied that the  schedule property mentioned in the complaint petition is vague.

On perusal of the schedule of the complaint petition, it appears that the schedule property is of 120 sq.ft. shop room situated at A/53, Baghjatin Colony, P.S.-Jadavpur. Further, there is no mentioned as to whether it is located in the ground floor, or first floor or any other floor. There is no mention also as to whether what is located in east, west, north or south of this shop room. However, OP No.1 has challenged that the agreement is incomplete. On perusal of the Xerox copy of the agreement, it appears that OP No.1 has not signed anywhere. Original agreement is not filed. On Xerox copy of the agreement the signature of Kalyan Roy appears and receipt has been filed which is signed by Kalyan Roy that he received Rs.1,10,000/-. However, Complainant has not prayed for refund of money.

So far as the description of property in the agreement for sale and complaint is concerned, it appears that it is vague. Since property description is vague the prayer for registration of a conveyance deed cannot be allowed and since Complainant has not prayed for refund of money we are not in a position to direct OP No.1 to refund the money to the Complainant.

OP No.2 has not contested the case.

Accordingly, whatever order will be passed that will be ex-parte against him. In the circumstances, there is no other alternative, but to dismiss the complaint.

Hence,

ordered

CC/60/2016 and the same is dismissed on contest against OP No.1 and ex-parte against OP No.2.