DATE OF FILING : 19-08-2013. DATE OF S/R : 13-01-2014. DATE OF FINAL ORDER : 24-03-2014. 1. Sri Nabendu Banerjee, son of late Khagendra Nath Banerjee, residing at flat no. C/417 of 398/1, G.T. Road, P.S. Bally, District – Howrah. 2. Smt. Ruma Banerjee, wife of Sri Nabendu Banerjee, residing at flat no. C/417 of 398/1, G.T. Road, P.S. Bally, District - Howrah.----------------------------------------------------- COMPLAINANTS. - Versus - 1. Sri Rebati Mohan Mukherjee, son of late Dasurathi Mukherjee, 2. Sri Jayanta Mukherjee, son of Kamkshya Charan Mukherjee, 3. Sri Subrata Mukherjee, son of late Hara Kr. Mukerhee, 4. Smt. Nandita Mukherjee, wife of late Hara Kr. Mukherjee, 5. Smt. Anjana Bhattacharya, wife of Sri Alok Bhattacharya, 6. Smt. Rubi Chatterjee, wife of Sri Pritam Chatterjee, 7. Smt. Tripti Mukherjee, wife of late Sukumar Mukherjee, 8. Sonali Mukherjee, daughter of late Sukumar Mukherjee, all are residing at 77/1, Panchanantala Road, P.S. Bally, District – Howrah, PIN – 711101. 9. Smt. Neelam Das, wife of Sri Suresh Das, residing at Nischinda Desh Bandhu Sarani, P.O. Ghoshpara, P.S. Bally, District – Howrah, PIN – 711101.------------------------------------------------------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.p. no. 9 to execute and register the deed of conveyance in favour of the complainants with respect to the ‘B’ schedule property and to pay compensation of Rs. 50,000/- and litigation costs of Rs. 10,000/- as the o.ps. in spite of the tripartite agreement dated 26-02-2010 did not execute the deed of conveyance as required. 2. The o.p. no. 9 in his written version contended interalia that the complainants intentionally avoided to register deed of conveyance in their favour. 3. Notices were served upon the o.ps. The o.p. nos. 1 to 8 did not appear and file any written version. So the case was heard ex parte against o.p. nos. 1 to 8. 4. Upon pleadings of both parties two points arose for determination : i) Is there any deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps. ? ii) Whether the complainants are entitled to get any relief as prayed for ? DECISION WITH REASONS : 4. Both the points are taken up together for consideration. Admittedly the o.p. no. 9 received Rs. 4,00,000/- as earnest money out of total consideration of Rs. 12,16,000/- vide tripartite agreement dated 26-02-2010 with respect to the ‘B’ Schedule property. During argument ld. lawyer for the o.p. no. 9 submitted that he is ready to deliver possession of the same and execute and register proper deed of conveyance. With such undertaking we are of the view that this 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. 293 of 2013 ( HDF 293 of 2013 ) be and the same is allowed on contest with costs as against the o.p. no. 9 and dismissed ex parte without costs as against the rest. The O.P. no. 9 be directed to execute and register proper deed of conveyance in favour of the complainants with respect to the ‘B’ schedule property within 30 days from the date of this order and the complainant be directed to pay the outstanding amount to the o.p. no. 9 within the period as mentioned ( 30 days ). The o.p. no. 9 do pay a litigation costs of Rs. 3,000/- to the complainant. No order as to compensation. The complainants are 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. | 
