Judgment dt.2.6.2016
This is a complaint made by one Bidhan Biswas, son of late Brojobashi Biswas, resident of Flat No.1/B, at 1st Floor, 29, Gouranga Mandir Road, Baghajatin G Block, P.O.-Baghajatin, Kolkata -700 086, against Sri Amalendu Bikash Dey, son of late Dakshina Ranjan Dey, the sole proprietor of M/S Pravasini Construction, having its office at 16, Ashok Road, Kolkata – 700 084, Smt. Anila Sikder, daughter of late Shobha Ranjan Sikder and Sri Atindriya Sikder, son of late Shobha Ranjan Sikder, praying for an order directing OP No.1 to complete the work of installation of fixtures and fittings including sanitary equipments and water connection line to make within the specific time and to pass an order directing the opposite parties to execute a registered deed of conveyance in favour of the Complainant in consonance with the agreement for sale dt.20.2.2007 and direction to opposite party to pay compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- and litigation cost of Rs.10,000/-.
Facts in brief that one Parul Rani Sikder was the sole owner of a piece of homestead land containing an area of four kathas together with structures erected in Mouja Bademasur, Khatian No.221, R.S.Dag No.235, J.L.No.31, premises No.44, Gouranga Mandir Road within the Ward No.101 of Kolkata Municipal Corporation. She possessed and enjoyed this piece of land and entered into an agreement for development on 20.10.2003 with OP No.1 and executed a general power of attorney on 9.11.2003.
Thereafter, another agreement for development was executed with OP. No.1 on 7.5.2005 and also executed an un-registered general power of attorney on 5.7.2005.
OP No.1 on the strength of general power of attorney dt.5.7.2005 performed all sorts of works and constructed a G+3 storied pucca building consisting several self contained flats and car parking spaces.
During continuation of the work of construction, Parul Rani Sikder died intestate on 22.12.2005, leaving her husband Sri Shobha Ranjan Sikder, her son Arindriya Sikdar and only daughter Miss Anila Sikder who inherited the property of Parul Rani Sikder.
OP No.1 entered into an agreement for development ON 2.4.2006 with the above mentioned heirs. Complainant booked a flat of 800 sq.ft. and entered into an agreement on 20.2.2007 with the OP No.1.
A tripartite agreement for sale was executed between developer, complainant and owners for purchase of the flat and accordingly Complainant purchased this flat. OP No.1 issued a possession letter to the Complainant and delivered possession of schedule C property on 15.5.2007 in favour of the Complainant. Thereafter, Sova Ranjan Sikder died intestate on 1.1.2009, being son and daughter are the sole heirs. OP No.1 on the plea of completion of the flat squeezed huge money from the Complainant, despite receiving a sum of Rs.7,30,744/- out of settled consideration of Rs,8,00,000/-.
Complainant prepared and handed-over draft deed in respect of the said flat to all the opposite parties and requested them to return the same after careful observation. It is the duty of all the opposite parties to take initiative to execute and register the deed of conveyance and transfer right in favour of the Complainant. Since opposite parties did not make a conveyance deed in favour of the Complainant this case was filed.
OP No.2 & 3 filed written version and contested the case. In the written version they have denied all the allegations made by the Complainant. Further, they have asserted they did not receive any money. Their further contention is that they signed the agreement for sale as owners and they are not bound by other, the claim of the Complainant is false. It is also denied that Complainant signed any draft of sale deed to the opposite party. So, opposite parties have prayed for dismissal.
OP No.1, developer did not contest this case and so the case was heard ex-parte against OP No.1.
Decisions with reasons
Complainant filed affidavit-in-chief where he has reiterated the facts mentioned in the complaint. In addition, Complainant has filed questionnaire to which OP No.2 & 3 have replied. Similarly, OP No.2 & 3 have filed questionnaire to which Complainant has replied. OP No.2 & 3 also filed evidence against which Complainant has filed questionnaire. Both the sides have submitted argument.
Main point for determination is whether Complainant is entitled to the reliefs as prayed for.
In this regard on perusal of affidavit-in-chief of the Complainant, it appears that Complainant entered into an agreement with the opposite party for purchase of flat No.1-B from the developer’s allocation. Further, it is stated that Complainant paid major portion of the consideration money to the developer i.e. Complainant paid a sum of Rs.7,30,744/- of which OP No.1 handed over letter of possession to the Complainant. Complainant, further, has submitted in respect of letter of possession, there appeared a discrepancy and OP No.1 tried to make it that possession was handed over on 15.5.2007. Now, Complainant apprehends that the flat can be recaptured by the opposite party if a deed of sale is not made.
Further, it appears that Complainant has filed certain documents wherein it is clear that possession letter is dated 15.5.2007. Against this opposite party filed questionnaire wherein about 17 questionnaires were put to the Complainant to which Complainant has answered. On perusal of the answers given it does not appear that there is any vital discrepancy.
Furthermore, OP No.2 & 3 have also filed affidavit-in-chief wherein they have alleged that they are joint owners of the property, they did not execute any agreement in favour of OP No.1. They do not have any knowledge as to what was paid to OP No.1.
Complainant had put questionnaire to OP No.2 & 3 which they have replied by stating the same facts which they have mentioned in written version.
In addition, both the sides have filed written argument wherein they have narrated their respective stories which they have put in the complaint and the written version. Complainant has filed certain documents. On perusal of which it appears that he has paid Rs.1,00,000/- on 3.2.2007, Rs.60,000/- on 20.2.2007, Rs.40,000/- on 21.2.2007, Rs.50,000/- on 9.7.2007 and Rs.3,25,000/- on 15.10.2007 and Rs.1,05,000/- on 18.12.2007 and Rs.33,244/- on 9.9.2008 to Pravasini Construction. Complainant has filed original receipts. Except this Complainant has not filed any original document. Now coming on to the agreement of the Complainant with the opposite parties, it appears that the agreement was entered into between them on 20.2.2007. Further, it reveals that at the time of entering into the agreement Complainant paid Rs.1,60,000/- and balance amount of Rs.6,40,000/- he was to pay afterwards. That means there was a valid agreement. After receiving the money, Complainant got possession of the property on 15.5.2007. As such, it is clear that Complainant is entitled to reliefs of registration of sale deed in his favour by the opposite parties. So far as the relief of compensation to the tune of Rs.10,00,000/- is concerned, there does not appear any ground for awarding compensation to the tune of Rs.10,00,000/-. But litigation cost or Rs.10,000/- appears to be genuine.
Hence
O R D E R E D
CC/18/2015 and the same is allowed on contest with cost. Opposite parties are directed to register the deed of conveyance of suit property as mentioned in schedule C of the complaint within three months of this order. Opposite parties are also directed to pay Rs.10,000/- as litigation cost to the Complainant within this period.
