DATE OF FILING : 20.03.2014.
DATE OF S/R : 29.04.2014.
DATE OF FINAL ORDER : 31.07.2015.
1. Sri Abhijit Saha,
2. Sri Sujit Saha,
both sons of Sri Jaganath Saha,
residing at 10/1/1, Beni Madhab Mukherjee Lane,
P.S. & District Howrah,
PIN 711101. ………………………………………………….. COMPLAINANTS.
1. Sri Asit Patra,
2. Sri Tarak Patra,
Both sons of late Kangali Patra,
Residing at 10/1/1, Beni Madhab Mukherjee Lane,
P.S. & District Howrah,
PIN 711101.
3. Sri Basant Chowdhury,
Son of Ram Prasad Chowdhury,
Of 4, Rameshwar Malia 1st Bye Lane,
P.S. & District Howrah,
PIN 711101.
4. Sri Arun Sonkar,
son of late Dinanath Sonkar,
of 16, New Seal Lane, P.S. & District Howrah,
PIN 711101. ……………………………………………OPPOSITE PARTIES.
P R E S E N T
Hon’ble President : Shri B. D. Nanda, M.A. ( double ), L.L.M., WBHJS.
Hon’ble Member : Smt. Jhumki Saha.
Hon’ble Member : Shri A.K. Pathak.
F I N A L O R D E R
- Complainants, Sri Abhijit Saha and Shri Sunit Saha, by filing a petition U/S 12 of the C. P. Act, 1986 ( as amended up to date ) have prayed for a direction to be given upon the o.ps. to execute and register the deed of conveyance in favour of the complainants after receiving the balance consideration amount and to pay Rs. 2,00,000/- as compensation along with other relief or reliefs as the Forum may deem fit and proper.
- Brief facts of the case is that the complainants paid Rs. 1,54,000/- as an advance payment to the o.p. nos. 3 & 4 for purchasing a flat in a multi storied building having premises no. 10/1/1, Beni Madhab Mukherjee Lane, P.S. & District Howrah, with the consent of o.p. nos. 1 & 2. For that purpose, one agreement for sale was executed by and between the parties on 18.7.2000 vide Annexure. The total consideration value is Rs. 2,20,000/-. And after completion of the building, the flat was handed over to the complainants but till date, the sale deed has not been executed by the o.ps. in favour of the complainant in spite of innumerable requests made by the complainants, even after sending lawyer’s notice dated 22.8.2012 & 12.10.2012. It is also alleged that o.p. no. 1 already vide his letter dated 30.7.2012 claimed huge amount from the complainants for executing the sale deed. Being frustrated and finding no other alternative, complainants field this instant petition praying for the aforesaid reliefs.
- Notices were served upon o.ps. O.p. nos. 1, 3 & 4 appeared and filed separate written version but o.p. no. 2 neither appeared nor filed written version. Accordingly, case heard on contest against o.p. nos. 1, 3 & 4 and ex parte against o.p. no. 2.
- Upon pleadings of all the parties two points arose for determination :
i) Is there any deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps. ?
- Whether the complainants are entitled to get any relief as prayed for ?
DECISION WITH REASONS :
- Both the points are taken up together for consideration. We have carefully gone through the written versions filed by the o.p. nos. 1 and also by o.p. nos. 3 & 4 and noted their contents. O.p. no. 1 has mentioned that one eviction suit being no. T.S. 294 of 2012 is pending before the 3rd Civil Court of Ld. Civil Judge ( Jr. Division ), Howrah. But it is admitted by the o.p. no. 1 that complainants paid Rs. 1,54,000/- out of total consideration amount of Rs. 2,20,000/- and the delivery of possession of the scheduled flat was made over in favour of the complainants. And as per the terms and condition of the Agreement For Sale dated 18.07.2010, complainants have been paying rent to o.p. nos. 3 & 4 initially and thereafter to o.p. nos. 1 & 2. So, it is the settled principle of law that when complainants are in possession of the scheduled flat, question of limitation does not arise. O.p. nos. 3 & 4 in their written version have stated that the power of Attorney which was given by o.p. nos. 1 & 2 and their mother, Tarangini Patra, since deceased, was cancelled on 29.05.2002 by a deed of cancellation but no document has been submitted by them. We all know that the sale of a flat is completed with registration of sale deed and not with mere transfer of physical possession. Clearly, the cause of action, which began with delivery of physical possession, continues till the deed of conveyance is executed and registered. O.ps. failed to produce any document to establish that complainants are responsible for such non execution and non registration of sale deed. Due to o.ps. such non action, complainants are put to real problem which should not be allowed to be perpetuated.
Hence,
O R D E R E D
That the C. C. Case No. 150 of 2014 ( HDF 150 of 2014 ) be allowed on contest with costs against the O.P. nos. 1, 3 & 4 and ex parte against o.p. no. 2.
That the O.Ps. are jointly and severally directed to execute and register the deed of conveyance in favour of the complainants after receiving the balance consideration amount within 30 days from the date of this order. Complainants are to bear the cost of registration.
That the o.ps. are jointly and severally further directed to pay to the complainants an amount of Rs. 10,000/- as compensation & Rs. 5,000/- as litigation costs within 30 days from the date of this order i.d., the aforesaid amount shall carry an interest @ 9% per annum till full realization.
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.
( Jhumki Saha)
Member, C.D.R.F., Howrah.
