Andhra Pradesh

Nellore

CC/87/2014

Raja mallikarjunararao - Complainant(s)

Versus

The District Registrar District Registrar office - Opp.Party(s)

S.M.Shaida

30 Nov 2015

ORDER

Date of Filing     :01-12-2014

                                                                                                Date of Disposal:30-11-2015

 

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM:NELLORE

Monday, this the 30^th day of   November, 2015

 

PRESENT: Sri M. Subbarayudu Naidu, B.Com.,B.L.,LL.M.,President(FAC) & Member                             

                   Sri N.S. Kumara Swamy, B.Sc.,LL.B., Member.

 

C.C.No.87/2014

 

Raja Mallikarjunarao, S/o.Masthanaiah,

Hindu, Aged 55 years,

Residing at Stonehousepet,

Near Sarada School, Nellore.                                                          ..… Complainant    

 

                                                                           Vs.

 

1.	The  District Registrar, District Court Compound, Nellore.
2.	The Sub-Registrar, Sub-Registration Office, Nawabpet, Near Mypadu Gate, Nellore.                                 ..…Opposite parties

                                                             .   

            This complaint coming on 20-11-2015 before us for hearing in the presence of                Sri S.M. Shaida, advocate for the complainant and                                                                         Sri K. Nagarathnam Reddy,  Assistant Government Pleader for the opposite parties and having stood over for consideration till this day and this Forum made the following:

 

ORDER

(ORDER BY  Sri  N.S. KUMARA SWAMY, MEMBER)

 

This complaint filed under Section-12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 prays to pay compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- towards damages and  costs of this complaint.

 

2.         The brief averments of the complaint are that complainant was the owner of house bearing No 5/192 situated in Sali veedi, stone house pet, Nellore. He sold away the said property for his necessities to one Narsaram Devasi and others. He presented the document for registration purpose before 2^nd opposite party on 26-09-2014. Without any lawful reasons , the 2^nd opposite party did not register the above said document as the           1^st opposite party instructed him not to register the said property and also issued the same instructions to the other registrar offices, Nellore district. The 2^nd opposite party further directed the complainant to meet the 1^st opposite party. Thereafter, the complainant approached the 1^st opposite party requesting to register the document but the 1^st opposite party gave evasive replies and directed the complainant soon after settlement of debts the document will get registration. Complainant alleged that opposite parties created false orders in their computers and on account of which registration was not done which finally caused him mental torture and loss. He further alleged that he approached the 1^st opposite party again on 29-9-2014 about the registration but on forcible direction by the 1^st opposite party, the complainant gave a requisition letter on 22-09-2014 for registration. Further on the direction of 1^st opposite party, the complainant again approached the 2^nd opposite party for the same reason and gave a letter dated 30-09-2014 to the 2^nd opposite party on  forcible direction, requesting to register the document. Even though he paid the relevant fees in addition to stamp duty fees, they kept pending without registration. Vexed with their attitude , the complainant got issued a legal notice dated 04-10-2014 to the opposite parties calling them to pay damages of Rs.10,00,000/- but no reply from them. But, the 1^st opposite party issued a letter which is filed herewith for perusal. Hence the complaint filed by the complainant for deficiency of service on the part of opposite parties.

 

3.         A.G.P. filed memo on behalf of opposite parties 1 and 2. Inspite of giving opportunity to file counter / written version, the opposite parties did not file the same. When called the opposite parties  and also their counsel A.G.P. were absent. No representation on their side.

 

             4.        The points for determination would be :

 

1. Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of  opposite parties in rendering service to the complainant in respect of registering the document?          If so,  whether the complainant is entitled to claim relief  as prayed for?
2. To what relief?

 

5.         The complainant filed evidence on affidavit on his side and marked documents as Exs.A1 to A4. Written arguments filed on his side only. Hence, the case is decided on merits basing on the documents filed by the complainant which were marked as Exs.A1 to A4. Perused the relevant material papers. Heard the arguments on behalf of complainant.          

 

6.         POINT No.1:- The grievance of the complainant is that the opposite parties failed to register the sale deed dated 26-9-2014 and they kept registration pending on flimsy grounds and thereby caused mental agony and torture. Thus, according to the complainant, there was deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties.

 

7.         The complainant for the reasons best known to him did not specifically averred as to the grounds on which the opposite party did not register the document. As could be seen from the averments of the complaint in para 4 that the opposite parties created some false orders in their computer system without specifying the exact nature of false orders said to have been created by the opposite parties.

 

8.         Usually, a document is presented for registration after completion of entire formalities such as paying the sale consideration, preparing the document , vendors duly signing the document with identification of witnesses and attestors signed the document enclosing photos of vendor and vendee. By the time of presentation of all the documents, the recitals of document should contain about the receipt of sale consideration under the said document. It is not the case of the complainant that vendees withheld payment of sale consideration and therefore he suffered any loss. Further, the complainant came forward with a version in para 5 of the complaint that on 29-09-2014 he was compelled to give a letter and he gave the said letter on 22-09-2014 which cannot be true as the statement given by the complainant is inconsistent. In para 6 of the complaint, it is averred that he gave a letter dated 30-09-2014 on the force given by the 2nd opposite party. The complainant who gave the said letters must have kept the copies of the same for his record purpose. For reasons best known to him, the complainant did not choose to file the copies of letters dated 22-09-2014 and 30-09-2014 for establishing his case.

 

9.         The opposite parties are officials of government and they are public servants. All acts done by the public servants are presumed to be done according to law until the contrary is established. The 1^st opposite party addressed a letter                           dated 08-10-2014 calling upon the learned advocate for the complainant to submit any Injunction orders of the competent court and further stated that if the complainant intends to send protest petition required to send copies of the same to all the sub registrars named in the said letter as online registration was in force in the District of Nellore. The complainant, for the reasons better known did not comply with the directions given in the said letter dated 08-10-2014 which were marked as Ex.A3. The registration authorities if there is any order of civil court granting Injunction restraining the registration of particular document, they are bound to obey the same. It is not the version of the complainant that there is no order of Injunction granted by the civil court. The complainant was at fault and to cover up his fault, he came forward with false and untenable reasons attributing motives to public servants solely with a view to black mail them and make them to come to his terms.

 

10.       The present complaint is nothing but an abuse of process of law making wild and reckless allegations against the public servants.

 

11.       Assuming for a moment that the 2^nd opposite party as per the instructions issued by the 1^st opposite party stopped registration of document is left with no other remedy. Registration Act provides hierarchy of appellate Forums to redress the grievance of the complainant. The complainant should have obtained orders from the 2^nd opposite party refusing to register the document and should have preferred appeal to the appellate authorities. Without exhausting the remedies provided under registration act, the complainant straight away approached this forum and this complaint is nothing but an abuse of process of law.

 

12.       The amount of Rs.10,00,000/- claimed as damages is ill-founded and the complainant wants to make profit from out of his own faults. He wants to enrich at the cost of others. Thus there is no deficiency of service on the part of opposite parties. Therefore, the complaint is devoid of any merits and is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, point No 1 is answered.

 

13.       POINT No.2:  In the result, the complaint is dismissed directing the both parties to bear their own costs.

 

Typed to the dictation to the Stenographer, corrected  and pronounced by us in the open  Forum, this the  30^th  day of  November, 2015.

 

 

                  Sd/-                                                                                          Sd/-

           MEMBER                                                                               PRESIDENT(F.A.C.)

 

 

 

                                                APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses Examined for the complainant

 

P.W.1  -

07-08-2015

Sri.Raja Mallikarjuna Rao, S/o.Masthanaiah, Nellore. (Affidavit filed)

Witnesses Examined for the opposite parties

-Nil-

 

                             EXHIBITS MARKED FOR THE COMPLAINANT

 

Ex.A1  -	04-10-2014	Legal notice from complainant’s advocate to the opposite parties alongwith registered post receipts.
Ex.A2  -	-	Two registered post acknowledgements received from opposite parties sent by the complainant’s advocate.
Ex.A3  -	08-10-2014	Letter from opposite party No.1 to the complainant’s advocate in letter No.G1/2464/2014.
Ex.A4  -	26-09-2014	Photocopy of  sale deed  with pending number between 1) Narsaram Dewasi, two others  and  complainant.

 

                         EXHIBITS MARKED FOR THE OPPOSITE PARTIES

-Nil-

 

                                                                                                  

                                                                                                                    Id/-

                                                                                                         PRESIDENT(F.A.C.)

Copies to:

 

1.	Sri S.M. Shaida, Advocate, 5/356, Srirangarajapuram, Stonehousepet, Nellore.
2.	Sri K. Nagarathnam Reddy, Assistant Government Pleader, Fathekhanpet,                Nellore-524 003.

 

Date when free copy was issued: