| FA No: 237 Of 2010 | | (Arisen out of Order Dated 12/04/2010 in Case No. 36/2009 of District Hooghly DF, Chinsurah) |
| | | | 1. Mrs. Kakali Ghosh. | | W/o. Late Abhijit Ghosh, Tulapati Ghat, P.O. Buroshibtala, P.S. Chinsurah, Dist. Hooghly. | | 2. Miss Sriparna Ghosh, D/o. Late Abhijit Ghosh | | Tulapati Ghat, P.O. Buroshibtala, P.S. Chinsurah, Dist. Hooghly. | | 3. Being Minor represented by her natural guardian mother Mrs. Kakali Ghosh | | Tulapati Ghat, P.O. Buroshibtala, P.S. Chinsurah, Dist. Hooghly. |
| ...........Appellant(s) | | Versus | | 1. Sri Kalyan Banerjee. | | S/o. Late Kalisadhan Banerjee, Narua Bosepara, Chandernagore, P.O. & P.S. Chadernagore, Dist. Hooghly. | | 2. Sri Sanat Das, S/o. Late Panchanan Das | | Jadu Ghosh Bye Lane, P.O. Boro panchanantala, Chandernagore, P.S. Chandernagore, Dist. Hooghly | | 3. Smt. Durga Rani Das, D/o Late Kananbala Das | | Jadu Ghosh Bye Lane, P.O. Boro Panchanantala, Chandannagore, P.S. Chandannagore, Dist. Hooghly. | | 4. Sri Rabin Das, S/o. Late Kananbala Das | | Jadu Ghosh Bye Lane, P.O. Boro Panchanantala, Chandannagore, P.S. Chandannagore, Dist. Hooghly. | | 5. Sri Debendra Nath Das, S/o. Late Kananbala Das | | Jadu Ghosh Bye Lane, P.O. Boro Panchanantala, Chandannagore, P.S. Chandannagore, Dist. Hooghly. | | 6. Smt. Rubi Rani Das, D/o. Late Kananbala Das | | Jadu Ghosh Bye Lane, P.O. Boro Panchanantala, Chandannagore, P.S. Chandannagore, Dist. Hooghly. | | 7. Sri Mohit Kumar Das, S/o. Late Kananbala Das | | Jadu Ghosh Bye Lane, P.O. Boro Panchanantala, Chandannagore, P.S. Chandannagore, Dist. Hooghly. |
| ...........Respondent(s) |
|
|
| ORDER | ORDER NO. 6 DT. 3.12.10HON’BLE JUSTICE MR. P.K.SAMANTA, PRESIDENT Appellant is present through Mr. P.Banerjee, Ld. Advocate. Heard him in full. Judgement is passed as under :- This Appeal is by the complainant against the order of dismissal of the complaint ex parte dated 12.4.10 passed by the Hooghly Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum in C.C. Case No. 36 of 2009. The deceased husband of the complainant entered into an agreement for purchase of a flat in question with the Ops on 18.8.95. The Ops are the promoters/developers and the land-owners respectively. It is not in dispute that pursuant to the aforesaid agreement the Promoters/Developers have already constructed the said flat in question and delivered possession to the complainant. Upon delivery of physical possession of the said flat to the complainant the Ops have not yet executed the Deed of Conveyance in respect of the said flat in favour of the complainant. Hence, the above complaint case. The same has been dismissed ex parte by the Forum below by holding that the complaint was barred by limitation as it was not filed within a period of two years from the date of entering into the aforesaid agreement by and between the parties. In the facts and circumstances as stated above, the cause of action for filing the complaint arose after completion of the construction of the flat in question and delivery of physical possession of the same to the complainant. Even upon construction and delivery of physical possession of the said flat to the complainant the right title and interest in the said immovable property would not stand transferred in accordance with law so long the Deed of Conveyance is not executed in favour of the purchaser by the vendor. The complainant being in actual physical possession of the flat in question the right to get the deed executed and registered by the vendor is a continuing right and, therefore, it cannot be said that the cause of action for taking legal action started from the date of entering into the aforesaid agreement. The impugned order has accordingly been made unlawfully by dismissing the complaint by holding the same as being barred by limitation. The said judgement and order of the Forum below is accordingly set aside. The Appeal is accordingly allowed. The complaint as filed by the complainant is allowed by directing the Ops to execute and register the Deed of Conveyance in respect of the flat in question as mentioned in the schedule to the aforesaid agreement dt. 18.8.95 entered into by and between the parties within a period of 90 (ninety) days from the date of this order. The complaint case shall accordingly stand allowed as above with cost of Rs. 20,000/- (Rupees twenty thousand only) both on account of harassment and mental agony suffered by the complainant and litigation cost. In case the Deed of Conveyance is not executed and registered by the Ops in terms of the aforesaid order, the complainant would be at liberty to put the said order into execution for getting the Deed of Conveyance executed and registered. | |
