The Secretary, Sri Satyanath housing Co-operative Society Ltd. V/S Adavirao S/o Madhwarao Kulkarni, - Consumer Court Case

Karnataka

Raichur

DCFR 3/08

Adavirao S/o Madhwarao Kulkarni, - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Secretary, Sri Satyanath housing Co-operative Society Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

D.Suresh

28 Aug 2009

ORDER

DIST. CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM
DIST. CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,DC Office Compound, Sath Kacheri
consumer case(CC) No. DCFR 3/08

Adavirao S/o Madhwarao Kulkarni,						...........Appellant(s)
Vs.
The Secretary, Sri Satyanath housing Co-operative Society Ltd.						...........Respondent(s)

BEFORE:

Complainant(s)/Appellant(s):

OppositeParty/Respondent(s):

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended

Highly recommended!

5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended

Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.

ORDER

JUDGEMENT By Sri. Pampapathi, President:- This is a complaint filed by the complainant Adavirao against Opposite Housing Co-operative Society for to award a total amount of Rs. 8,00,000/- with interest at the rate of 20% p.a. from the date of complaint till realization of the full amount. 2. The brief facts of the complainant case are that, he purchased plot bearing No. 17 measuring 9x12 meters situated in the approved layout of the opposite society formed in land bearing Sy.No. 1220 of Raichur for a total consideration of Rs. 10,800/- vide Registered Sale Deed dt. 29-04-1997. Opposite Secretary made him to believe that he is going to deliver the possession of the plot after fixing boundary stones. Accordingly he got Registered Sale Deed without taking possession of the plot. Thereafter opposite secretary not shown his interest in handing over the possession of the plot to him, he requested several times but possession of the plot bearing No. 17 was not handed over to him. Hence there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite, as such he filed this complaint for the reliefs as prayed in it. 3. Opposite Society, appeared in this case through his Advocate, filed written version by admitting the fact of purchasing the said plot No. 17 measuring 9x12 meters by the complainant under Registered Sale Deed dt. 29-04-1997. He further contended that the possession of the vacant plot was handed over to complainant on the date of sale deed, as such he denied all other allegations made by the complainant against him and prayed for to dismiss the complaint among other grounds. 4. In-view of the pleadings of the parties. Now the points that arise for our consideration and determination are that: 1. Whether the complainant proves that, he purchased the plot No. 17 measuring 9x12 meters for consideration of Rs. 10,800/- through registered sale deed dt. 29-04-1997 with an assurance of the opposite that he is going to deliver the possession of the said plot shortly after fixing boundary stones and leveling it, thereafter he made several requests to the opposite for to hand over the possession of the said plot but opposite shown negligence in handing over the possession of it and thereby opposite found guilty under deficiency in his service? 2. Whether complaint is entitled for the reliefs as prayed in his complaint.? 3. What order? 5. Our findings on the above points are as under:- (1) In Negative. (2) In Negative. (3) In-view of the findings on Point Nos. 1 & 2, we proceed to pass the final order for the following : REASONS POINT NO.1 & 2:- 6. In order to prove the facts involved in these two points, affidavit-evidence of the complainant was filed, he was noted as PW-1, additional affidavit-evidence of him also filed. Documents Ex.P-1 and Ex.P-2 are marked. On the other hand affidavit-evidence of the secretary of the Opposite Society was filed he was noted as RW-1.No documents were produced and marked. 7. In the instant case complainant placed his reliance on the sale deed Ex.P-1 to establish the fact that he purchased the plot bearing No. 17 measuring 9x12 meters from the opposite society dt. 29-04-1997. Opposite has not denied the execution of the sale deed Ex.P-1 with regard to sale of the said plot to the complainant, as such the detail discussions about the genuines or otherwise of Ex.P-1 is not necessary. 8. As per the case of the complainant and his affidavit-evidence discloses that opposite not delivered the vacant possession of the plot bearing No. 17 to him, at the time of execution of sale deed Ex.P-1. Opposite contended that the vacant possession of the said plot was handed over to complainant vide sale deed Ex.P-1 and contended that the recital of Ex.P-1 discloses the handing over the possession of the said plot to the complainant on the date of the sale deed itself. 9. In order to ascertain the real dispute between the parties, we have gone through the documents, sale deed atEx.P-1 and Ex.P-1(1) the sketch map of the plot No. 17 annexed to the sale deed Ex.P-1. The sale deed Ex.P-1 discloses the fact that as on the date of the sale deed Ex.P-1, possession of the plot No. 17 was handed over to the complainant. with all rights, title, interest and easements etc., Ex.P-1 (1) map disclose the situation of the plot with boundaries. In-view of the said circumstances, we are of the view that the case of the complainant regarding non-delivery of the possession of the plot is against to his own documents at Ex.P-1. The complainant cannot adduce evidence against his own written document. He accepted the possession of the plot NO. 17 as per the sale deed for the year 1997 itself, as such we are not in a position to accept the case of the complainant as opposite society not delivered the possession of the vacant plot to him by virtue of Ex.P-1. Hence the sale transaction in between the complainant and opposite in-respect of plot No. 17 was completed as on the date of Ex.P-1. Nothing remained for the opposite to perform any kind of services, in pursuance of the sale consideration of the said plot and thereby we have not accepted the case of the complainant that there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite towards him. 10. Another contention that was taken by the opposite is that the complaint is barred by limitation. According to him, the sale deed is dt. 29-04-1997 and possession of the plot was handed over to him on the same date. If any grievances of the complainant in-respect of sale deed at Ex.P-1, he ought to have filed case within two years from the date of cause of action, but complainant filed by this complaint on 07-01-2008 by creating imaginary cause of action as 27-10-2007 as pleaded in Para-7 on Page No-3 of the complaint. 11. On the other hand the learned advocate for complainant submitted before us that the complaint is within time as the request of the complainant made in person on 27-10-2007 was not considered by the opposite. 12. In pursuance of the submissions made on both sides on this point, we are of the view that there is no acceptable evidence from the side of the complainant to hold that he made his personal request to the opposite on 27-10-2007. The date might have shown by the complainant only to make out his case under limitation, as such we are of the view that the present complaint filed by the complainant is hopelessly time barred as per the date of sale deed at Ex.P-1. In view of the above said reasons, we answered Point No.1 in Negative. As regards to the reliefs prayed by complainant is concerned, he is not entitled for any one of the reliefs, as prayed in the complaint. In view of our finding on Point NO-1 according this point is also answered in Negative. POINT NO.3:- 13. In view of our findings on Point Nos. 1 & 2, we proceed to pass the following order: ORDER This complaint filed by the complainant is dismissed. All the parties to this complaint are directed to bear their own respective cost. Intimate the parties accordingly. (Dictated to the Stenographer, typed, corrected and then pronounced in the open Forum on 28-08-09) Sd/- Sri. Pampapathi, President, District Forum-Raichur. Sd/- Sri. Gururaj, Member, District Forum-Raichur.

JUDGEMENT By Sri. Pampapathi, President:- This is a complaint filed by the complainant Adavirao against Opposite Housing Co-operative Society for to award a total amount of Rs. 8,00,000/- with interest at the rate of 20% p.a. from the date of complaint till realization of the full amount. 2. The brief facts of the complainant case are that, he purchased plot bearing No. 17 measuring 9x12 meters situated in the approved layout of the opposite society formed in land bearing Sy.No. 1220 of Raichur for a total consideration of Rs. 10,800/- vide Registered Sale Deed dt. 29-04-1997. Opposite Secretary made him to believe that he is going to deliver the possession of the plot after fixing boundary stones. Accordingly he got Registered Sale Deed without taking possession of the plot. Thereafter opposite secretary not shown his interest in handing over the possession of the plot to him, he requested several times but possession of the plot bearing No. 17 was not handed over to him. Hence there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite, as such he filed this complaint for the reliefs as prayed in it. 3. Opposite Society, appeared in this case through his Advocate, filed written version by admitting the fact of purchasing the said plot No. 17 measuring 9x12 meters by the complainant under Registered Sale Deed dt. 29-04-1997. He further contended that the possession of the vacant plot was handed over to complainant on the date of sale deed, as such he denied all other allegations made by the complainant against him and prayed for to dismiss the complaint among other grounds. 4. In-view of the pleadings of the parties. Now the points that arise for our consideration and determination are that: 1. Whether the complainant proves that, he purchased the plot No. 17 measuring 9x12 meters for consideration of Rs. 10,800/- through registered sale deed dt. 29-04-1997 with an assurance of the opposite that he is going to deliver the possession of the said plot shortly after fixing boundary stones and leveling it, thereafter he made several requests to the opposite for to hand over the possession of the said plot but opposite shown negligence in handing over the possession of it and thereby opposite found guilty under deficiency in his service? 2. Whether complaint is entitled for the reliefs as prayed in his complaint.? 3. What order? 5. Our findings on the above points are as under:- (1) In Negative. (2) In Negative. (3) In-view of the findings on Point Nos. 1 & 2, we proceed to pass the final order for the following : REASONS POINT NO.1 & 2:- 6. In order to prove the facts involved in these two points, affidavit-evidence of the complainant was filed, he was noted as PW-1, additional affidavit-evidence of him also filed. Documents Ex.P-1 and Ex.P-2 are marked. On the other hand affidavit-evidence of the secretary of the Opposite Society was filed he was noted as RW-1.No documents were produced and marked. 7. In the instant case complainant placed his reliance on the sale deed Ex.P-1 to establish the fact that he purchased the plot bearing No. 17 measuring 9x12 meters from the opposite society dt. 29-04-1997. Opposite has not denied the execution of the sale deed Ex.P-1 with regard to sale of the said plot to the complainant, as such the detail discussions about the genuines or otherwise of Ex.P-1 is not necessary. 8. As per the case of the complainant and his affidavit-evidence discloses that opposite not delivered the vacant possession of the plot bearing No. 17 to him, at the time of execution of sale deed Ex.P-1. Opposite contended that the vacant possession of the said plot was handed over to complainant vide sale deed Ex.P-1 and contended that the recital of Ex.P-1 discloses the handing over the possession of the said plot to the complainant on the date of the sale deed itself. 9. In order to ascertain the real dispute between the parties, we have gone through the documents, sale deed atEx.P-1 and Ex.P-1(1) the sketch map of the plot No. 17 annexed to the sale deed Ex.P-1. The sale deed Ex.P-1 discloses the fact that as on the date of the sale deed Ex.P-1, possession of the plot No. 17 was handed over to the complainant. with all rights, title, interest and easements etc., Ex.P-1 (1) map disclose the situation of the plot with boundaries. In-view of the said circumstances, we are of the view that the case of the complainant regarding non-delivery of the possession of the plot is against to his own documents at Ex.P-1. The complainant cannot adduce evidence against his own written document. He accepted the possession of the plot NO. 17 as per the sale deed for the year 1997 itself, as such we are not in a position to accept the case of the complainant as opposite society not delivered the possession of the vacant plot to him by virtue of Ex.P-1. Hence the sale transaction in between the complainant and opposite in-respect of plot No. 17 was completed as on the date of Ex.P-1. Nothing remained for the opposite to perform any kind of services, in pursuance of the sale consideration of the said plot and thereby we have not accepted the case of the complainant that there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite towards him. 10. Another contention that was taken by the opposite is that the complaint is barred by limitation. According to him, the sale deed is dt. 29-04-1997 and possession of the plot was handed over to him on the same date. If any grievances of the complainant in-respect of sale deed at Ex.P-1, he ought to have filed case within two years from the date of cause of action, but complainant filed by this complaint on 07-01-2008 by creating imaginary cause of action as 27-10-2007 as pleaded in Para-7 on Page No-3 of the complaint. 11. On the other hand the learned advocate for complainant submitted before us that the complaint is within time as the request of the complainant made in person on 27-10-2007 was not considered by the opposite. 12. In pursuance of the submissions made on both sides on this point, we are of the view that there is no acceptable evidence from the side of the complainant to hold that he made his personal request to the opposite on 27-10-2007. The date might have shown by the complainant only to make out his case under limitation, as such we are of the view that the present complaint filed by the complainant is hopelessly time barred as per the date of sale deed at Ex.P-1. In view of the above said reasons, we answered Point No.1 in Negative. As regards to the reliefs prayed by complainant is concerned, he is not entitled for any one of the reliefs, as prayed in the complaint. In view of our finding on Point NO-1 according this point is also answered in Negative. POINT NO.3:- 13. In view of our findings on Point Nos. 1 & 2, we proceed to pass the following order: ORDER This complaint filed by the complainant is dismissed. All the parties to this complaint are directed to bear their own respective cost. Intimate the parties accordingly. (Dictated to the Stenographer, typed, corrected and then pronounced in the open Forum on 28-08-09) Sd/- Sri. Pampapathi, President, District Forum-Raichur. Sd/- Sri. Gururaj, Member, District Forum-Raichur.