HON’BLE MR. SUDIP NIYOGI PRESIDENT FACTS Following the development agreement dated 05/12/2018 with opposite party No. 3 who is the absolute owner of the scheduled property at premises No. 90 M, Kumar Para Lane, P.S- Kasba, Kolkata- 700042 within KMC Ward No. 91, opposite party No. 1 who is the developer undertook to construct one 4-storied building in the said property. For the purpose of development, one Power of Attorney was executed by the said owner in favour of the developer. The complainant executed an agreement for sale of a flat measuring 507 sq. ft. which included 20% super-built-up area in the ground floor of the east side of the said 4-storied building with the opposite party No. 1 and opposite party No. 2 (the name of opposite party No. 2 was subsequently expunged) at a consideration of Rs.12,50,000/- and Rs.2,00,000/- was made advance by the complainant. Subsequently, complainant paid Rs.11,35,000/- towards the consideration to opposite party No. 1 & 2 and only Rs.1,15,000/- remaining unpaid. Complainant requested the opposite parties to execute and register the deed of conveyance in his favour on receiving the balance of Rs.1,15,000/-. He issued letter to that effect but his request was not complied with. So, complainant lodged the instant complaint before this Commission praying for execution of deed of conveyance in his favour, compensation and cost of litigation etc. Opposite party No. 1 & 2 both filed their separate written versions and contested the case. According to opposite party No. 1, complainant paid only Rs.2,00,000/- and the balance amount of consideration was not paid by him. He further claimed that he has no connection with opposite party No. 2. Opposite party No. 3 also claimed to have cooperated in the construction of the building and however, both of them prayed for dismissal of the instant complaint. Complainant filed evidence in this case. Opposite party No. 1 also filed their evidence and following the prayer of opposite party No. 3, their written version was taken to be evidence on their behalf. Both parties exchanged interrogatories and relies thereto. Be it mentioned here that at the time of argument stage, on the prayer of the complainant, the name of opposite party No. 2 was expunged. Now the point for consideration is whether the complainant is entitled to the relief(s) as prayed for. FINDINGS: We have gone through the materials on record including the documents filed by the parties. We have also gone through the written version of argument. We find it admitted that there was an agreement for development of the scheduled property between opposite party No. 1 and opposite party No. 3. It is also admitted that there was an agreement for sale between the complainant and opposite party No. 1 in which the developer agreed to sell the scheduled flat to the complainant at a consideration of Rs.12,50,000/- and it was also agreed between the parties that the deed of conveyance in favour of the complainant would be made within 18 months from the date of the agreement for sale. Now, the point is that it is admitted complainant paid Rs.2,00,000/- to the opposite party No. 1. Though, he made a total payment of Rs.11,35,000/- but he could not produce any document to show that he had paid the said amount to opposite party No. 1 towards consideration of the price and opposite party No. 1 claimed to have received only Rs.2,00,000/- from the complainant. During hearing, it is found that complainant paid one paper showing payment of money on different dates to one Anath Bandhu Pal who is said to be a building contractor and developer but complainant failed to produce any document to show that said Anath Bandhu Pal had any connection, whatsoever, with opposite party No. 1 or with the development agreement or agreement for sale in favour of the complainant. That being so, the claim of the complainant that he had paid Rs.11,35,000/- cannot at all be entertained. However, during argument, learned Advocate appearing for the complainant submitted that the complainant is ready to pay the balance amount of consideration of Rs.10,50,000/- and accordingly, a direction may be given to the present opposite parties to execute the deed of conveyance in his favour on receipt of the said amount. Having heard both the parties and on going through the materials on record, we find that the complainant is entitled to get the deed of conveyance executed and registered in his favour on payment of balance consideration of Rs.10,50,000/- to opposite party No. 1. Complainant is also entitled to Rs.3000/- as cost of litigation. Accordingly, it is ORDERED That the instant case be and the same is allowed on contest against opposite party No. 1 & 3. Opposite party No. 1 & 3 are directed to execute and register the deed of conveyance in favour of the complainant on receipt of the balance consideration of Rs.10,50,000/- (Rupees Ten Lakh Fifty Thousand Only) from the complainant. Opposite party No. 1 & 3 are also to pay Rs.3,000/- (Rupees Three Thousand Only) to the complainant towards cost of litigation. Both the opposite party No. 1 & 3 are jointly and severally liable to comply with this order within 45 days from the date of this order failing which, complainant shall be at liberty to proceed in accordance with law. Dictated and corrected by me. President | 
