This is a complaint filed by one Manju Basak of Bejoygarh Colony, P.S. Jadavpur against the OP No. 1,Shibdas Guha, Builder and OP Nos. 2 to 5, viz., Sanjib Kumar Dutta, Khokan Dutta, Sabita Ghosh, and Mandira Sengupta, land owners, praying for necessary order so that OP Nos. 3 to 5 remain present before the Registration Office for completion of the process of registration of the Deed of Conveyance and for direction upon the OP Nos. 3 to 5 to pay costs and compensation to the Complainant.
Facts in brief, are that, the Complainant executed an Agreement for Sale dated 06-10-2013 for purchase of a flat in the 2nd floor, measuring more or less 509 sft. Super built up area consisting of two bed rooms, one drawing-cum-kitchen, one attached verandah at 2/128, Bejoygarh Colony, P.S. Jadavpur, Kolkata – 700 032 with undivided proportionate share of land at a consideration amount of Rs. 14,00,000/-. Complainant paid the total consideration money to the builder as per terms and conditions of the Agreement for Sale dated 06-10-2013. It is also stated that the said Flat is one of the units of a newly constructed building as a result of an agreement between Satya Ranjan Dutta, land owner and Shibdas Guha, the builder. Satya Ranjan Dutta died on 09-09-2014 leaving behind his two sons, namely, Sanjib Kumar Dutta and Khokan Dutta and two married daughters, namely, Sabita Ghosh and Mandira Sengupta as heirs.
Complainant paid total consideration money as per demand of the builder. The builder assured the Complainant that he would bring all the four landowners to the registration office for execution and registration of the Deed of Conveyance in the name of the Complainant. But, the OP Nos. 2 to 5, allegedly, did not come forward to sign the Deed of Conveyance in favour of the Complainant. So, the Complainant issued legal notice to the OPs praying for registration and for costs also.
OP No. 3 filed written statement and denied all the allegations of the complaint. He further denied that he is at all liable to sign the registration Deed.
OP No. 4, by filing her written version, prayed for dismissal of the complaint case on the ground that she is not liable to make registration of the flat in favour of the Complainant.
Against this, the Complainant filed Affidavit-in-Chief and thereafter, questionnaires were filed by the OPs, to which the Complainant filed Affidavit-in-Reply.
Decision with reasons
Main point for determination is whether the Complainant is entitled to the relief as prayed for.
On perusal of the prayer portion of the complaint it appears that first prayer of the Complainant is for necessary order upon the OP Nos. 3 to 5 to remain present before the registration office for completion of the process of registration of the Deed of Conveyance.
It appears from the photocopy of Agreement for Sale that the date of the Agreement for Sale is hand-written, which is 06-10-2013 and this Agreement for Sale has been signed by Manju Basak and Shibdas Guha, i.e., the Complainant and the Builder, who have put their signatures on all the pages of the Agreement for Sale.
Further, it appears that merely the name of Satya Ranjan Dutta, land owner, as a confirming party is mentioned in the Agreement for Sale. But, curiously enough, Satya Ranjan Dutta has not signed anywhere in the Agreement for Sale which makes it clear that Satya Ranjan Dutta did not have any liability to make the registration Deed in favour of the Complainant.
It appears on perusal of the Affidavit-in-Chief, filed by both the parties and the questionnaires and then the Affidavit-in-Reply that the Complainant has sought for registration of the deed in her favour for which necessary Agreement for Sale was executed in between the Complainant and the Builder, i.e., OP No. 1. Such undisputed fact makes it abundantly clear that there was no such liability on the part of the land owners to execute the Deed of Conveyance in favour of the Complainant and consequently, the liability of the OP Nos. 3 to 5, who are sons and daughters of the land owner, who is already dead, does not arise at all.
In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, we are of the view that since the original landowner has not signed the Agreement for Sale, his heirs cannot be made liable to remain present before the registering authority to sign the registration deed.
Since the liability of the OP Nos. 2 to 5 could not be established by the Complainant by filing cogent documentary proof, any question of granting compensation and litigation cost also does not arise.
Hence,
O R D E R E D
that CC/143/2016 be and the same is dismissed on contest against the OPs, but without any order as to costs.
