Judgment : Dt.18.1.2018

Shri S. K. Verma, President

            This is a complaint made by one Sri Ajit Kumar Banthia, son of Mohanlal Banthia, residing at 16C, Dover Lane, P.S.-Ballygunge, Kolkata-700 029 against Sri Aranya Sen, son of Late Rathindra Kumar Sen, residing at 22/1/1/11, Manoharpukur Road, P.S.-Lake, Kolkata-700 029, OP No.1, Goutam Ghosh, son of Late Sukumr Ghosh, residing at 22/1/1/11, Manoharpukur Road, P.S.-Lake, Kolkata-700 029, OP No.2, Smt. Illa Banerjee, wife of Late Pranab Banerjee, residing at 91A, Pratik Market, Munrika, New Delhi-110 067, OP No.3, Sri Dipak Kumar Sen, son of Late Jitendra Kumar Sen, residing at Tagore Niwas, Street C-1, Opposite C-1/4, Vasant Vihar, New Delhi-110 057,  OP No.4, Prantar Sen,son of Late Rathindra Kumar Sen, residing at Tagore International School, E-Block, East of Kailash, New Delhi-110 065, OP No.5, Smt. Sheela Ghosh, residing at 22/1/1/11, Manoharpukur Road, P.S.-Lake, Kolkata-700 029, OP No.6 and Smt. Lata Chakraborty, residing at 22/1/1/11, Manoharpukur Road, P.S.-Lake, Kolkata-700 029, OP No.7 praying for making deed of conveyance in favour of the Complainant of the schedule B property and to pay compensation of Rs.50,000/- and litigation cost of Rs.10,000/-.

            Facts in brief are that OP No.1 to 7 became the absolute owner of the premises No. 22/1/1/11, Manoharpukur Road, P.S.-Lake, Kolkata-700 029, devolved upon them an area of 3 cottahs 4 chittaks 12 sq.ft. OPs mutated their names in the assessment register of the KMC and paid taxes and rents before the competent authorities. OP No.1 & 2 are the joint lawful attorney holder of the cowners and OP No.1 & 3 to 7 are the joint owners of premises No. 22/1/1/11, Manoharpukur Road, P.S.-Lake, Kolkata-700 029. Complainant has stated that he entered into an agreement for sale dt.22.6.2001with Jitendra Kumar Sen and Smt. Roma Sen, both deceased, Sri Prantar Sen, Sri Aranya Sen, Smt. Illa Banerjee, Sri Barindra Kumar Sen, deceased, for purchasing a flat mentioned in the schedule B of the agreement for sale for a price of Rs.9,00,000/-. OPs granted un-retistered power of attorney in favour of Barindra Kumar Sen in connection with the affairs of the said premises. Complainant has also stated that he paid full and final payment of the consideration amount towards the purchase of the said flat. Complainant has also stated that on August, 2011 he occupied possession of the flat as it is mentioned in schedule B and he is in possession. OPs refused to make deed o conveyance in favour of the Complainant. So, Complainant filed this case.

            OP No.1 to 7 filed written version and denied the allegations of the complaint. They have further stated that the complaint suffers from join-joinder and mis-joinder of necessary parties. Further, he has stated that Jogendra Kumar Sen, sole owner of the property measuring 3 cottahs 4 chittaks 12 sq.ft. together with two storied building standing at premises No.22/1/1/11, Monoharpukur Road, P.S.-Lake, Kolkata-700 029. After the death of Jogendra Kumr Sen, OPs became the owners. Complainant made payment of Rs.5,16,823/-, whereas the total consideration was Rs.9,00,000/-. OP always maintained good relationship with the Complainant. Complainant and OPs took up the issue with the contractor. The contractor assured that the amount which was received from the Complainant would be credited in the account of OPs. Except this these OPs have denied specifically the allegations of the complaint and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

Decision with reasons

            Complainant filed affidavit-in-chief to which OPs filed questionnaire to which Complainant filed affidavit-in-reply.  OPs also filed evidence to which Complainant filed questionnaire and OPs filed affidavit-in-reply.

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

            In this regard, it appears that there is no dispute regarding the possession of the Complainant over the flat. Further, in the complaint’s schedule B is a flat measuring 775 sq.ft. and in the agreement also, dt.22.6.2001, schedule B is a 775 sq.ft. Ld. Advocate for OP raised an objection that there is discrepancy in heir of the flat. However, there is no challenge regarding the possession of the Complainant of the flat.

            As such, we are of the view that if an order for making deed of conveyance in favour of the flat of which Complainant is in possession is made object of justice would be served.

            Complainant has also prayed for compensation and litigation cost.

            Considering the facts and circumstances, we are of the view that Complainant is not entitled to any compensation and litigation cost because of the fact that Complainant filed this complaint after a lapse of allowing period i.e. after about a lapse of six years.

Hence,

ordered

            CC/148/2017 and the same is allowed on contest. OPs are directed to make conveyance deed in favour of the Complainant of the flat of which he is in possession, within three months of this order.