O R D E R

By Smt.Sreeja.S.,  Member :

          Complainant is the subscriber of kuri conducted by 1^st opposite party company and 2^nd opposite party is the Manager of the 2^nd opposite party.  He subscribed two tickets of 5^th day kuri in the month of January 1995 and  he auctioned it on 5/9/97.  For the payment of balance instalments he deposited Rs.40,000/- each and it is assured that interest of the same would meet the instalments.  He also subscribed 4 tickets in the 4^th day kuri began in the month of 1995.  Since same has been auctioned and an amount of Rs.50,000/-  deposited and the interest of the same is agreed to adjusted towards the balance instalments.  Thereafter he subscribed ticket in the 12^th day kuri started on December 2000 and also another ticket in the 2^nd kuri began on February 1999.  He also subscribed a 3^rd day kuri to started on December 1997 and another one on the 14^th day kuri began November 2001.  These four kuries auctioned and deposited Rs.50,000/- each in favour of 3 among them and deposited Rs.55,000/- towards the last one for the sake of adjusting  the interest towards the balance instalment in the 1^st opposite party company.  It has been made believed and assured by 2^nd opposite party that these FD maintained with 1^st opposite party company is sufficient to meet the purpose.  As these 3 deposits of Rs.50,000/- each were maintained in the aforesaid last 3 kuries, ,  OP1 further obtained deed No.1060/98, 1061/98 regarding  the property having an extent of 45 cent comprised in the Kodakara village in the name of complainant.  Further they informed that those deeds will be   returned as and when he deposit Rs.55,000/- in the aforesaid 4^th  last kuri.  Even though he deposited  Rs.55,000/-, opposite parties were reluctant to return the deed on the premise that interest rate of deposits were  reduced and  the same is insufficient to meet with balance instalment and also informed that after paying the entire instalment alone those deeds will be returned.  It has also been assured by the 2^nd opposite party and believing that assurance those documents were handed over to 1^st opposite party company.  As and when the complainant deposited Rs.55,000/- they should return those documents to the complainant and act otherwise amounts to cheating and deficiency of service.  Therefore he caused a lawyer notice demanding the documents but it was replied stating false allegation.  Complainant never mortgaged any property in their favour and  they are not entitled to  hold the document in any manner.  Hence this complaint.

          2. On receiving complaint, notice served properly to the opposite parties.  Opposite parties appeared through counsel and filed their version.  The contents of the version is as follows: The complaint is not maintainable.  The complainant is not entitled  to maintain a complaint regarding those kuries which were subscribed by  and in the name of another person’s.  The complainant never deposited three fixed deposits of Rs.55,000/- as alleged.  All other deposits are given as security and never offered that the balance instalment will be met by the interest thereon.  1^st opposite party is regularly paying the interest on all those deposits and no other securities were kept against those kuries.  He also having another kuri subscription and after auctioned the same he never remitted the balance instalment and these facts were suppressed by the complainant.  The title deeds were kept as a security deposit for the kuries.  The Company never stated that on depositing Rs.55,000/- those document will be returned.  In fact earlier  his residential property having 9 cents were kept security and thereafter on his request that document were returned and accepted the aforesaid deeds.  They never reduced the rate of interest.  Those deeds cannot be returned without discharging the liability towards 1^st opposite party.  The opposite party filed a suit for money based on kuri agreement before Irinjalakuda Sub Court as OS.222/05 and these documents are produced before that Court.  The complainant already filed some frivolous  complaint before the Police and those were not considered as it was false.  They are not entitled to get any relief and hence prayed for dismissal.

          3. Points for consideration are that :

1) Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties?

2) If so, reliefs and costs ?

          4. From the side of complainant, he filed proof affidavit in tune with complaint.  He also produced 5 documents, which are marked as Exts.P1 to P5.  Ext.P1 is copy of petition dated 20/12/2004, Ext.P2 is petition dated 7/1/2005, Ext.P3 is copy of lawyer notice dated 1/12/2004, Ext.P4 is reply notice dated 7/12/2004 and Ext.P5 series are pass books(8 Nos.).  The complainant also examined as PW1.  From the side of opposite parties counter proof affidavit filed and produced  13 documents, which are marked as Exts.R1 to R13.  Ext.R1 is copy of OS.222/05 judgement , Ext.R2 is copy of OS.222/05 decree,  Ext.R3 is copy of  statement No.217 kuri agreement, Ext.R4 is statement No.105 kuri agreement, Ext.R5 is copy of statement No.127 2^nd day kuri agreement , Ext.R6 is copy of 12^th day kuri statement No.147 kuri agreement copy, , Ext.R7 is copy of statement No.127 14^th day kuri agreement, Ext.R8 is  copy of memorandum dated 16/1/02, Ext.R9 is title deed  certified copy kuri statement 217, Ext.R10 is title deed certified copy kuri statement 105 , Ext.R11 is certified copy of security details, Ext.R12 is copy of security deposit receipt and Ext.R13 is copy of security deposit receipt. Opposite parties witness is marked as RW1.  

          5. This is a complaint to get back the document  Nos. 1060/98, 1061/98  property which has been entrusted with the opposite parties towards the security of kuri transaction therein and also to get back the deposit money along with interest.  Both parties admit the kuri transaction and depositing those title deeds.  The pecuniary nature of this case is that the opposite parties have already been preferred a suit before a competent  civil court for realization of money on the strength  of the kuri agreement.  Exts.R1 and R2 are the respective decree and judgement  and those document specifically create charge over the property comprising above said document.  The complainant admits existence of civil suit and its EP thereon.  The case of opposite party is that they filed the suit for realization of money after adjusting entire fixed  deposit and  its respective interest.  Hence it has come out in evidence that the fixed deposits in dispute has already been adjusted in a suit before a competent civil court.  Hence nothing more exist to decide regarding this dispute, especially when the complainant  admits that no appeal yet preferred  against that judgement pronounced by the Civil Court.  Hence the prayer regarding the return of deposit along with interest fails.  Now the matter to be adjudicated confined to return of documents.  Both  counsels vehemently argued and argument note also filed.  The opposite parties submission made across the bar that 5 cents out  of 42 cents land was sold and delivery ordered.  Ext.R2 decree clarifies in the schedule attached to it the sale deed No.1060/98 having an extent of 21 cents and sale deed No.1061/98 of Nellayi SRO  having an extent of 21 cents.  So it can be  concluded the property covered by the document not completely sold out and residue property right still remains with those documents.  It is to be considered that the sale of the aforesaid 5 cents covered under the  aforesaid deeds sufficiently met the money, interest etc. due to the opposite parties.   Hence the purpose which the properties mortgaged with the opposite parties was seemingly satisfied.  Hence we are convinced that the complainant is entitled to get back those documents.  Since there exist residue property covered under the aforesaid documents the complainant  still remains the title holder to that property especially, the opposite party have no contra case in any manner.  Since a pact of the property sold out realizing money, there is grave injustice in  further holding the aforesaid deeds by the opposite parties.  Hence this Commission partly allowed with complaint to that extent alone.

          6. In the result complaint is partly allowed and  the opposite parties are hereby directed to return back the original sale deed No.1060/98 and 1061/98 of  Nellai SRO to the complainant within one month from the date of receipt of copy of this order.  Both parties are directed to bear with their respective costs.

            Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the open Commission  this the  30^th  day  of November  2020.

Sd/-                      Sd/-                                                   Sd/-

Sreeja.S                Dr.K.Radhakrishnan Nair         C.T.Sabu                       

Member                Member                                    President                           

                                      Appendix

Complainant’s Exhibits

Ext.P1 copy of petition dated 20/12/2004,

Ext.P2 petition dated 7/1/2005,

Ext.P3 copy of lawyer notice dated 1/12/2004,

Ext.P4 reply notice dated 7/12/2004

Ext.P5 series -pass books(8 Nos.)  

Complainant’s witness 

PW1 – V.G.Mohanan

Opposite Parties Exhibits 

Ext.R1 copy of OS.222/05 judgement ,

Ext.R2 copy of OS.222/05 decree, 

Ext.R3 copy of  statement No.217 kuri agreement,

Ext.R4 statement No.105 kuri agreement,

Ext.R5 copy of statement No.127 2^nd day kuri agreement ,

Ext.R6 copy of 12^th day kuri statement No.147 kuri agreement copy, , Ext.R7 copy of statement No.127 14^th day kuri agreement,

Ext.R8  copy of memorandum dated 16/1/02,

Ext.R9 title deed  certified copy kuri statement 217,

Ext.R10 title deed certified copy kuri statement 105 ,

Ext.R11 certified copy of security details,

Ext.R12 copy of security deposit receipt

Ext.R13 copy of security deposit receipt

Opposite Parties witness

RW1 – M.L.George                                                                         

                                                                                       Id/-

                                                                                      Member