This is a complaint made by one Arati Rani Rudra, wife of Late Usha Ranjan Rudra, residing at 6/91, Poddar Nagar, P.O.-Jodhpur Park, P.S.-Jadavpur, Kolkata-700 068, district – South 24-parganas against (1) Sri Rana Bhattacharjee, son of Late Madhusudan Bhattacharjee, of B/14, Baghajatin, P.S.- Jadavpur, Kolkata-700 092, OP No.1, (2) Sri Moni Dey, son of Late Reboti Mohan Dey, of 45/C, Bikramgarh, P.S.-Jadavpur, Kolkata-700 032, OP No.2, (3) Smt. Gayatri Roy, daughter of Late Dhirendra Nath Majumder and Parul Bala Majumder, wife of Sunil Ranjan Roy, of 343, Prince Anwarshah Road, P.S.-Jadavpur, Kolkata-700 095, OP No.3, (4) Smt. Gauri Majumder, daughter of Late Dhirendra Nath Majumder and Parul Bala Majumder, wife of Dipak Kumar Majumder, of 61/1, Santoshpur Avenue, P.S.-Purba Jadavpur, Kolkata-700 075, OP No.4, (5) Smt. Anu Prava Gupta, Daughter of Late Dhirendra Nath Majumder and Parul Bala Majumder, wife of Ajit Kanti Gupta, 48/4, Purbachal Main Road, P.S.-Kasba, Kolkata-700 078, OP No.5, (6) Sri Bibhu Sankar Majumder, son of Late Dhirendra Nath Majumder and Parul Bala Majumder, 203, Jadu Nath Ukil Road, Kudghat, P.S.-Thkurpukur, Kolkata-700 041, OP No.6, (7) Eti Majumder, wife of Late Bhaba Sankar Majumder, OP No.7 and (8) Souvik Majumder, son of Late Bhaba Sankar Majumder, OP No.8. Both 7 & 8 are residing at 42, South Shibcharan Road, P.O.-Birati, P.S.-Birati, Kolkata- 700 005, praying for compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- and Rs.50,000/- for not producing the Completion Certificate and un-lawful delay in execution of the registered deed and also a direction upon the OPs to execute and register deed of conveyance in favour of the Complainant in respect of the schedule mentioned flat.
Facts in brief are that Complainant is a peace loving citizen of India and has no suitable residential accommodation, except where she resides. Her son, Panna Rudra, now deceased, for himself and for his mother entered into an agreement with the OPs of a flat of 430 sq.ft. super built up area for a price of Rs.10,25,000/-. Said Panna Rudra made full payment of the agreed money and OP No.1 & 2 delivered the possession of the scheduled flat on 7.12.2013 and Complainant with her son resided in that flat and is still residing there. On 5.9.2015 Panna Rudra died and the Complainant being class 1 heir is entitled to the property of her son. OPs assured that they would execute a deed of conveyance in favour of the Complainant. Complainant was always ready and willing to purchase the flat.
Complainant on several occasions requested the OPs to execute the deed of conveyance. But, OPs did not adhere to the requests. So, Complainant filed this case.
OP No.2 filed written version where he has denied all the allegations of the complaint. In paragraph 2 OP No.2 has stated that Panna Rudra entered into agreement of sale on 29.5.2013 to purchase a flat measuring about 430 sq.ft. more or less including super built-up area being Flat No.b on the 2nd floor of premises No.C/24, Poddar Nagar, P.S.- Jadavpur, Kolkata-700 084 at a total consideration of Rs.10,25,000/-. OPs have completed the construction. But Complainant made default in making payment within the stipulated time and Rs.25,000/- is still lying un-paid.
Panna Rudra died without paying entire consideration money. OPs made contact with the Complainant for liquidating the unpaid amount and to get conveyance deed registered. Initially Complainant did not pay any heed to that. Thereafter a dispute arose regarding adherence right of the property left by Panna Rudra. Since Panna Rudra died leaving no testimony/document for nominating any person who will be entitled to receive his flat after his death. Further, OP No.2 has stated that this Forum has no jurisdiction to adjudicate about the inheritance right of Panna Rudra and only Civil Court has jurisdiction. In the circumstances, OP No.2 has prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
Other OPs did not make any appearance and so the complaint was heard ex-parte against them.
Decision with reasons
Complainant filed affidavit-in-chief wherein she has reiterated the facts mentioned in the complaint. Against this OP No.2 filed questionnaire to which Complainant filed affidavit-in-reply. Similarly, OP No.2 filed evidence on affidavit wherein he has reiterated the facts mentioned in the written version filed by him against which Complainant has filed questionnaire to which OP No.2 filed affidavit-in-reply.
Main point for determination is whether the Complainant is entitled to the reliefs as prayed for. In this regard, there is no dispute that deceased Panna Rudra entered into agreement for sale with the developer OP No.1 & 2 and he paid the consideration money as agreed except Rs.25,000/- as alleged.
However, agreement for sale reveals that Panna Rudra paid total consideration of money of Rs.10,25,000/- which has been admitted by the OP No.1 & 2 in agreement for sale. So, their denial that Rs.25,000/- is still due and to be paid cannot be acceptable.
There is a Xerox copy of letter which reveals that OP No.1 & 2 handed over possession of the flat to Panna Rudra. Thereafter there is a letter dated 5.10.2015, praying for registration for the flat. But, it appears that any how the registration was not made.
At the time of argument, Ld. Advocates for the OPs submitted that his clients are ready to make conveyance deed. But, whether Complainant is heir of Panna Rudra is in dispute. However, on perusal of the death certificate of Usha Ranjan Rudra, it appears that he died on 3.2.2013. Further, copy of voter list of Panna Rudra reveals that Usha Ranjan is the father of Panna Rudra. Copy of death certificate of Panna Rudra reveals that he died on 5.9.2015. Further, copy of voter Identity Card of Arati Rani Rudra reveals that she is the wife of Usha Ranjan, that means there is prima facie material though in the form of Xerox copy to establish that Panna Rudra is the son of the Complainant. This is also not disputed that Panna Rudra died bachelor.
In the circumstances, it is clear that on the basis of the documents Complainant is entitled for the flat where she is at present residing and she used to reside with her son Panna Rudra even at the time of her son’s death.
The allegation of OPs that there are other heirs has not been established either in the form of document or in any manner whatsoever in the form of evidence is filed. Admittedly, OPs No.1 & 2 being developer took Rs.10,25,000/- from the son of the Complainant and as such we do not find that only on the ground that mother is not heir of the son the complaint cannot be entertained and she cannot get registered deed in her favour.
Even common prudence suggests that if the order is not made in favour of the Complainant, she would be deprived of her right of residence for which her son paid total money and the OP No.1 & 2 would be in a position to oust her and do mischief despite having received the total consideration money which was paid by the son of the Complainant.
So, it is clear that Complainant is entitled to the relief for getting deed of conveyance in her favour.
She has also prayed for compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- and Rs.50,000/- as litigation cost.
In our view the circumstances suggests that compensation of Rs.30,000/- if awarded, it would be justiciable and litigation cost of Rs.30,000/- it would suffice.
Hence,
ordered
CC/70/2016 and the same is allowed on contest in part against OP No.1 & 2 and ex-parte against other OPs. OPs are directed to make conveyance deed in favour of the Complainant within three months of this order. Of course, registration fee and other charges in making deed of conveyance shall be paid by the Complainant. OPs No.1 & 2 are also directed to pay compensation of Rs.30,000/- and litigation cost of Rs.30,000/- to the Complainant within the same period, in default this amount shall carry interest @ 10% p.a. from the date of filing this complaint.
