DATE OF FILING                    :     27-05-2014.

DATE OF S/R                            :      30-06-2014.

DATE OF FINAL ORDER      :     24-12-2014.  

Sri Kartick Biswas,

son of Sri Kshitish Biswas,

residing at 34/1, Nandalal Mitra Lane,

Salkia, P.S. Golabari,

District – Howrah. ……………………………………………… COMPLAINANT.

• Versus   -

1. Sri Rabindranath Betal,

son of late Tinkori Betal,

residing at 90, Naskar ParaRoad, P.O.Ghusuri,

P.S. M.P.Ghora, District Howrah,

PIN 711107.

2. Sri Debasish Bera,

son of Sri Banamali Bera,

residing at 309/3,G.T. Road ( N ), Salkia,

P.S. M.P. Ghora, District Howrah,

PIN 711107.

3. Sri Moloy Mondal,

son of Sri Shibkali Mondal,

residing at 58, Sashibhusan Mukherjee Lane, Salkia,

P.S. M.P. Ghora, District Howrah,

PIN711107. ………………………………………………OPPOSITE PARTIES.

                                                P    R    E     S    E    N     T

President     :     Shri T.K. Bhattacharya, M.A. LL.B. WBHJS.

Member      :      Shri P.K. Chatterjee.

Member       :     Smt. Jhumki Saha.

                                                 F  I   N   A    L       O   R   D    E     R

1. The instant case was filed by complainant U/S 12 of the C.P. Act, 1986 wherein the complainant has  prayed for direction upon the o.ps. to execute and register proper sale deed with respect to the schedule mentioned flat and to pay compensation to the tune of Rs. 1,00,000/-  together with Rs. 25,000/- as litigation costs as the o.ps. in violation of the agreement dated 15-11-2013 and receiving Rs. 8,50,000/- as advance money did not execute and register the sale deed.  

2. The o.p. no. 1  in his  written version contended interalia that the power of attorney executed in favour of o.p. nos. 2 & 3 has already been revoked and as such the complaint should be dismissed.

3. The o.p. nos. 2 and 3 in their written version admitted the receipt of Rs. 8,50,000/- and they are ready to execute and register the sale deed though the o.p. no. 1 has filed  T.S. No. 114 of 2014. 

4.        Upon pleadings of both parties two points arose for determination :

i)          Is there any deficiency in service on the part of the O.P.  ?

1. Whether the complainants are  entitled to get any relief as prayed for ? 

DECISION  WITH   REASONS      :

5.         Both the points are  taken up together for consideration. Admittedly the o.p. nos. 2 & 3 entered into an agreement for sale of the schedule mentioned flat with the complainant on 15-11-2013 at a consideration of Rs. 18,50,000/- and received Rs. 8,50,000/- as an advance. Meantime the o.p. no. 1 filed one T.S. being no. 114 of 2014 against the o.p. nos. 2 & 3 to restrain them from making any construction. The o.p. nos. 2 & 3 also filed another  T.S. being no. 128 of 2014 against o.p. no. 1. In the Misc. Appeal No. 62 of 2014, preferred by the o.p. nos. 2 & 3, they got injunction order against the o.p. no. 1 Rabindranath Betal. Whatever be the litigating relation between the o.ps. we must make it clear that the instant petition of complaint is quite maintainable in view of Section 3 of the  C.P. Act, 1986.

6. Be that as it may on scrutiny of the documents we see that the o.p. nos. 2 & 3 are willing to honour the agreement as  Rs. 8,50,000/- was paid in advance. We further make it clear that revocation of the power of attorney by the grantor, o.p. no. 1 cannot stand in the way of execution of the sale deed and as such revocation has no effect in the eye of law in view of Clause 23 of the Power of Attorney.    

Therefore, in view of the admitted position, we are of the view thatthis is a fit case where the prayer of the complainant shall be allowed. Both the points are accordingly disposed of.

      Hence,                             

O     R     D      E      R      E        D

      That the C. C. Case No. 305  of 2014 ( HDF 305 of 2014 )  be  and the same is allowed on contest with  costs as  against  the O.Ps. 

      The O.P. nos. 2 & 3  be directed to execute and register proper sale deed with respect to the schedule mentioned flat within 60 days  from the date of this order after receiving the balance consideration money of Rs. 10,00,000/-  ( Rupees ten lakhs ).

      The o.p. no. 1 be directed to remain present during execution and registration of the deed as confirming party.

      The o.p. nos. 2 & 3 shall pay Rs. 5,000/- to the complainant as litigation costs.  

      No order as to compensation.

      The complainant is  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.  

  (    T.K. Bhattacharya  )                                              

  President,  C.D.R.F., Howrah.