BEFORE THE DISTRICT FORUM: KURNOOL
Present: Sri. T.Sundara Ramaiah , B.Com B.L., President
And
Sri. M.Krishna Reddy , M.Sc., M.Phil., Male Member
Friday the 4th day of February , 2011
C.C.No 139/10
Between:
T.Siva Nagappa, S/o Nagappa,
H.No.46-524, Bhudhavar peta,Kurnool, Kurnool District - 518 002.
…Complainant
-Vs-
Sri Shiridi Sai Estates,Represented by its Managing Director, S.Bala Veeraiah, C/o Maruthi Constructions,
Plot No.1, Gayathri Estates,Kurnool - 518 002. …Opposite party
This complaint is coming on this day for orders in the presence of Sri. M. Azmathulla, Advocate, for complainant, and Sri D. Yella Reddy, Advocate for opposite party upon perusing the material papers on record, the Forum made the following.
ORDER
(As per Sri. T.Sundara Ramaiah, President)
C.C. No. 139/10
1. This complaint is filed under section 11 and 12 of C. P. Act, 1986 praying to direct the Opposite party:-
- To execute the registered sale deed in favour of the complainant;
OR
In alternative direct the opposite party to pay Rs.5,00,000/- towards the present market value of the said plot;
- To pay compensation of RS.1,00,000/- for causing mental agony;
- To award interest at he rate of 18% per annum;
- To award costs of the complainant and
- To pass such other relief or reliefs as the honorable Forum may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.
2. The case of the complainant in brief is as under:- The Opposite party floated a residential layout plots at Kurnool under the name and style of Sri Shiridi Sai Estates in the year 1995. The complainant got enrolled as a member under membership No.1591and 1592. The said scheme was commenced on 17-02-1995. The duration of the scheme is for 60 months. The installment is Rs.350/- per month. The complainant paid all the installments to the opposite party. After receipt of the installments the opposite party allotted plot No.36 to an extent of 0.05 cents. After paying all installments, the complainant several times requested the opposite party to execute registered sale deed in his favour. But the opposite party neglected and post phoned it. On 14-09-2009 the complainant got issued a registered legal notice to the opposite party and requested to execute the registered sale deed or in alternative to pay the present market value of the plot. The opposite party received the said notice and kept silent. Hence the complaint.
3. Opposite Party filed written version, stating that the complaint is not maintainable. Sri Shiridi Sai Estate, Kurnool was dissolved in the year 2001. The other partners of firm are necessary parties to the complaint. The complainant is put to strict proof that he is the one of the members of the scheme and he has paid 60 monthly installments regularly to the opposite party. Some of the members in the venture in Shiridi Sai Nagar dropped in the venture in the middle of the scheme. After completion of the scheme, the opposite party and other partners have jointly executed the registered sale deeds to all the members in the Venture, who have paid 60 monthly installments. The complainant never demanded the opposite party to execute register sale deed immediately after payment of the alleged installments. Now there are no plots available in Shiridi Sai Nagar Venture. After laps of 10 years from the date of opening of the scheme, the complainant approached the Forum. The complainant is barred by time. It is liable to be dismissed.
4. On behalf of the complainant, Ex.A1 to A3 are marked and sworn affidavit of the complainant is filed. On behalf of the opposite party, Ex. B1 to B4 are marked and sworn affidavits of opposite party is filed.
5. Both sides filed written arguments.
6. The points that arise for consideration are:-
- Whether there is deficiency of service on the part of the Opposite Party?
- Whether the complainant is entitled to the reliefs as prayed for?
- Whether the complaint is barred by time?
- To what relief?
7. POINT No.1 & 2 :- Admittedly S.Bala Veeraiah is one of the partners of the firm Sri Shiridi Sai Estate. The said firm started Venture in Shiridi Sai Nagar, Kurnool. Several persons joined as members in the said venture and paid 60 monthly installments. After payment of the 60 installments, the opposite party and other partners executed registered sale deed to the members of the Sri Shiridi Sai Nagar Venture.
8. It is the case of the complainant that he is one of the members of the Sri Shiridi Sai Nagar Venture and paid 60 monthly installments at Rs.350/-. It is further case of the complainant that after payment of all installments, he was allotted plot No.36 in the said Venture. The opposite party denied that the complainant is the one of the members in Shiridi Sai Nagar Venture and that he was allotted plot No.36 in the said venture. The burden is on the complainant to establish that he joined as a member in Shiridi Sai Nagar Venture and paid 60 monthly installments to the firm. Except the affidavit evidence of complainant, there is no documentary evidence on record to show that the complainant was a member in Shiridi Sai Venture and that he paid 60 monthly installments @ Rs.350/- per month. Had the complainant joined as a member in the said Venture and paid 60 monthly installments, there must be some documentary evidence. The complainant did not file the membership receipt. He has also not filed the receipt showing the payment of installments to the opposite party. In the absence of documentary evidence that the complainant is member of Shiridi Sai Nagar Venture and that he had paid monthly installments, it cannot be believed that the complainant was allotted plot No. 36 in the Venture. The complainant simply filed photo copy of layout plan and allotment letter said to have been issued by Sri Shiridi Sai Estate. Ex.A1 and A2 are not at all signed by any person connected to Shiridi Sai Estate. According to the complainant the duration of the scheme is 60 months from 17-02-1995. The scheme came to an end by 17-02-2000. If there is truth in the contention of the complainant it is not known why the complainant kept quite for 9 years. The complainant got issued Ex.A3 notice dated 04-09-2009 to the opposite party. No explanation is given by the complainant as to why he kept quite for all these years. The complainant failed to establish that he is a member in Shiridi Sai Nagar Venture and that he paid installments to the opposite party. There is also no proof that the complainant was allotted plot No.36 in the said Venture. Merely because the opposite party did not give any reply for the notice got issued by the complainant, it cannot be presumed that the complainant was member in the Venture and that he was allotted No.36 in the said Venture. The opposite party filed Ex.B2 to B4 photo copy of sale deeds executed by the partners of Gayathri Estates to the members of Shiridi Sai Nagar Venture. The said document for executed in the year 2003. Had the complainant paid all the installments and he was allotted plot No.36, the partners of the firm would have executed the sale deed in favour of the complainant. In action of the complainant for a long time goes to show that there is no truth in his contention.
9. Point No.3 :- It is the case of the complainant that the complaint is barred by time. According to the complainant the scheme was commenced on 17-02-1995 and the duration of scheme was 60 months. The scheme must have come to end by 17-02-2000. The complainant filed the present complaint on 04-06-2010. Section 24-A of C.P. Act provides that (1) The District Forum, the State Commission or the National Commission shall not admit a complaint unless it is filed within two years from the date on which the cause of action has arisen. (2) Not withstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), a complaint may be entertained after the period specified in sub section (1), if the complainant satisfies the District Forum, the State Commission or the National Commission, as the case may be, that he had sufficient cause for not filling the complaint within such period. Provided that no such complaint shall be entertained unless the National Commission, the State Commission or the District Forum, as the case may be, records its reasons for condoning such delay.
There is no record to show that the complainant filed a petition to condone the delay in filling the complaint and that the delay was condoned. It is submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the complainant that the complainant got issued notice Ex.A3 dated 14-09-2009 and that the complaint is filed within two years from the date of the said notice. Admittedly the opposite party received the said notice and did not give any reply. Mere issuing of lawyers notice does not save period of limitation. In the present case the cause of action for the complainant arose on 17-02-2000 when the scheme was closed after payment of all installments to the opposite party. It is mentioned in the complaint that after payment of all installments, the complainant requested the opposite party to execute register sale deed and the opposite party post phoned it. The cause of action arose in the year 2000. The period of limitation is two years from the date on which the cause of action has arisen. It is submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the complainant that the cause of action continues till the registration is completed. In support of his contention he relied on a decision reported in 2007 (2) CPR 80. In the said decision the West Bengal State Commission observed that as per decision of the Honorable Apex, court it is the settled position of law that in case of purchase of flat the cause of action is continuing in nature till the registration is complete and the Flat and relevant documents are handed over to the purchaser.
10. The facts of the present case are entirely different from the facts of the case cited above. In the present case in hand the complainant failed to establish that he was allotted plot No.36 and put in possession of the said plot. The present complainant is not in time. The complainant is barred by time.
11. In the result, the complaint is dismissed. In the circumstances of the case no costs.
Dictated to the stenographer, transcribed by her, corrected and pronounced by us in the open bench on this the 4th day of February, 2011.
Sd/- Sd/-
MALE MEMBER PRESIDENT
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
Witnesses Examined
For the complainant : Nil For the opposite party : Nill
List of exhibits marked for the complainant:-
Ex.A1 Photo copy of Broacher of the scheme.
Ex.A2 Photo copy of allotment letter of Plot No.36
to the complainant.
Ex.A3 Office copy of legal notice dt. 14-09-2009 along with
postal receipt and acknowledgement.
List of exhibits marked for the opposite party:
Ex.B1 Photo copy of Registration of Firms Form-A of M/s Shirdi Sai Estates dt.28-10-1994.
.
Ex.B2. Photo copy of Register sale deed executed by OP and other partners Bh.Kameswara Singh. Dwaram Siva Rami Reddy,
Bh.Sudarshan Singh in favor of T.Mallikarjuna Reddy, dt.15-02-2003.
Ex.B3 Photo copy of Register sale deed executed by OP and other partners Bh.Kameswara Singh. Dwaram Siva Rami Reddy.
Bh.Sudarshan Singh in favor of M.S.Sunil Kumar,
dt.15-02-2003.
Ex.B4 Photo copy of Register sale deed executed by OP and other partners Bh. Kameswara Singh. Dwaram Siva Rami Reddy,
Bh.Sudarshan Singh in favor of K.Sreenivasulu,
dt.15-07-2003.
Sd/- Sd/-
MALE MEMBER PRESIDENT
// Certified free copy communicated under Rule 4 (10) of the
A.P.S.C.D.R.C. Rules, 1987//
Copy to:-
Complainant and Opposite parties
Copy was made ready on :
Copy was dispatched on :
