Judgment dated 08-06-2016
This is a complaint made by Smt. Ranjana Dutta nee Mitra wife of Late Dilip Kumar Dutta daughter of Late Sunil Kumar Mitra of 380 Parnasree Pally, Behala, Kolkata- 700 060 against Shri Mrinal Kanti Das, Shri Sagnik Das, Shri Tushar Kanti Bhoiwmick all developers and Shri Manabendra Nath Roy land owner praying for an order directing the OP to execute and register the Deed of Conveyance in respect of the flat mentioned in schedule ‘B’ of the complaint, to pay Rs.3,00,000/- as compensation for causing mental agony, pain and harassment and also Rs.25,000/- as litigation cost.
Facts in brief are that petitioner with her mother Late Gita Mitra and her brother Late Biswajit Mitra 10/4F, Nepal Bhattarcharjee Street, P.S. Bhowanipur entered into an agreement for sale on 1-10-1993 with OP No.1(a) and OP No.1(b) ane Shri Tushar Kanti Bhowmick for purchasing a flat measuring about 800 Sq. ft. on a total consideration of Rs.3,60,000/- . Complainant paid Rs.1,00,000/- as part payment of total consideration money and thereafter paid Rs.2,60,000/- . Complainants got possession of the said flat on 30-11-1995. Thereafter during the life time of Gita Mitra mother of the Complainant by a letter dated 24-11-2006 informed OP that She and Biswajit Mitra nominated their two third share in respect of the said flat in favour of the Complainant. Gita Mitra died on 20-01-2007. Complainant filed a complaint on 26-12-2008 before the Ld. President, DCDRF, South 24-Parganas with a prayer for making a Deed of Conveyance in her favour. In that case OP No.1 filed written version. OP No.3 contested the case by filing written version challenging the maintainability. The said Forum opined that there was no deficiency in service on the part of the OP and the Complainant is not entitled to get reliefs as prayed for and the case was dismissed on contest against OP No.1 and 3 and ex-parte against OP No.2. The nomination by Gita Mitra to the Complainant in place of her son is void and Complainant is not entitled to get reliefs. Thereafter Complainant filed a case before the Ld. District Judge for letter of administration and Ld. District Judge vide Order No.24 dt.19-08-2015 was pleased to appoint Complainant as guardian of mentally ill younger brother Biswajit Mitra. Said Biswajit Mitra expired on 25-11-2015 and Complainant persuaded OP to make the registered deed in her favour. But since OPs did not comply the request of the Complainant this case was filed.
Decisions with reasons
Complainant has filed petition stating that her complaint be treated as affidavit-in-chief. OPs did not appear and so the case was heard ex-parte.
Main point for determination is whether Complainant is entitled to reliefs as prayed for.
In the present case admittedly claim of Complainant was dismissed by CDRF, South 24-Parganas vide order dated 9-8-2010. On perusal of Xerox copy of the said judgment; it appears that in that complaint Complainant of this case and OPs are same. Further on perusal of judgment it appears that the prayer was also same. Since that complaint was dismissed on contest, this Forum does not have jurisdiction to grant reliefs to the Complainant. Death of Biswajit Mitra took place on 25-11-2015. His death cannot in any way confer jurisdiction to this Forum. If the allegations of Complainant is believed it is clear that two third of the share is with her as transferred by Gira Mitra and Biswajit Mitra but after proving this allegation no document is filed. Furthermore no document is filed to establish that Gita Mitra and Biswajit Mitra died without leaving any heir.
On perusal of agreement to sale it appears that the agreement was between Shila Das on the one hand and Gita Mitra, Ranjana Mitra, Biswajit Mitra as second party and 3rd party is Tushar Kanti Bhowmick who has been shown as developer.
Since no significant change took place for conferring jurisdiction upon this Forum we are afraid that we can hear this matter and pass verdict on it.
On perusal of the record it appears that on behalf of OPs No. 1(a), 1(b) and 2 a written version is filed. Further it appears that this written version has been filed on 25-5-2016 when the date was fixed for argument and perhaps after the argument was completed.
On perusal of this written version it appears that simple denial of the allegation of complaint has been made in it and there is nothing from which Complainant may be benefited.
This agreement was entered into in 1993 on 1st October. Thereafter, possession was handed over on 30th November, 1995. Since then up to 2006 Complainant remained waiting and did not pursue for registration. Suddenly on 26th December, 2008 Complainant filed the previous case which was dismissed.
In the aforesaid facts and circumstances we find that this Forum has no jurisdiction to give relief to the Complainant.
Hence,
O R D E R E D
CC/98/2016 and the same is dismissed ex-parte.
