Between:

Sri Srinivas Naidu, S/o Sri Venkata Ranaga Rao, Hindu,

Aged 42 years, residing at S.R.Complex, D.No.55-15-22/2,

H.B.colony, Visakhapatnam -22.

2. Sri Nallamilli Srinivas Reddy, S/o Balavardhi Reddy, Hindu,

Aged 38 years, residing at G.No.241/F, Sector-8, Ukkunagaram,

Visakhapatnam – 32.

                                                                                ……Complainants

And

1. Smt. Yadavalli Lalita Seshu Padma, W/o Sri Y.V.Tukaram,

Hindu, 45 years, Residing at Plot No.165,Sector – 5, MVP Colony,

1. M/s Creative Constructions, A Proprietary concern,

Rep.,by its Proprietor, Sri Muddu Vijay Anand,

S/o M.Chandra Mouli, 40 years, Flat No.4, PVR Paradise,

Pillakomativanipalem, Car shed Junction, Visakhapatnam.

1. Sri Earla Ravi Raju, S/o Sanyasi, 40 Years, Builder,

Residing near St.Mary School, Vizianagaram.

                                                                             ……Opposite parties

          This complaint is coming on for final hearing before us in the presence of Sri P.Venu Gopala Rao, Advocate for the complainant and Sri K.V.N.R.Prasad Advocate for O.P. 1, O.P.2 appeared inperson and Sri V.D.Babu, Advocate for  O.P.3 and having stood over for consideration, the Forum made the following:-

O   R   D   E   R

          This is a complaint filed under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act seeking the reliefS to direct the respondents 1 and 2 to complete the construction of the flat No.G-1 in Sri Balaji Enclave, Plot No. MIG-91 in A.P.Housing Board Alakananda Colony and to register a sale deed in favour of the complainantS at the expenses of the respondents and to direct the respondents 1 and 2 to pay a sum of Rs.2,10,000/- towards compensation calculated @ Rs.5,000/- per month towards the rent of the flat from 20-6-2009 till 20-12-2012  and to award costs on the following averments:

          The schedule property is a residential flat No.G-1 in the ground floor of a plinth area of 950 Sft., in M/s Balaji Enclave situated and constructed in plot No.MIG-91 in A.P. Housing Board Alakananda Colony, Vizianagaram.  Its total extent is 263.33 Sq.Yds. 

          The respondent No.1 Smt Yadavalli Lalita Seshu Padma is the owner of the plot No.MIG-91 having purchased the same under a sale deed dt.7-12-2004.  The respondent No.1 in the capacity of the owner of the plot had entered into a Development Agreement with the respondent No.2, a developer for the construction of a multi-storied structure i.e., apartment building.  The 2^nd respondent under the said development agreement dt.11-4-2007 agreed to construct apartment building by obtaining municipal plan approval in the name of 1^st respondent within a period of 12 months with a grace period of 3 months.

          Both the respondents have jointly agreed to sell one flat No.G.1 for a sum of Rs.9,50,000/- to the complainants and have entered into sale agreement in their favour on 20-6-2008.  The total consideration agreed includes the cost of land, the cost of construction, registration charges, electricity connection and one car parking.  The respondents 1 and 2 have received a sum of Rs.50,000/- as booking amount from the complainants.  Both the respondents have agreed to complete the construction within one year from the date of agreement and insisted the complainants to make payment towards balance of the sale consideration.  Both the complainants made several payments by cheques and in cash and in all paid a total sum of Rs.8,85,000/- on different occasions commencing from 16-6-2008 to 5-3-2011.  The balance of sale consideration left is only Rs.65,000/- and the same was retained to meet the cost of registration and electricity service connection charges which are agreed to be borne by the O.Ps.

          Though the respondents received more than 90% of the cost of the flat had not completed the construction proportionately.  The flat is still under construction and it is not in a condition to occupy and live there.  Though the agreement is more than 4 years old, the respondents 1 and 2 have failed to complete the construction and hand over the same to the complainants.   Hence, the latter were constrained to issue a lawyers notice dt.4-12-2012 to the former demanding them to complete the construction work and handover the same and to pay damages @ Rs.5,000/- per month.  The respondents 1 and 2 have received the notice and 1^st respondent gave contentious reply.  The 3^rd respondent being inducted by respondents 1 and 2 is making some material alterations in the flat No.G.-1 and are attempting to sell the same in favour of 3^rd parties.  The delay in handing over the possession of flat even after payment of almost the total amount would amount to deficiency of service and as such the complainants are entitled to get compensation as well as the reliefs prayed for.  Hence the complaint.

          Respondents 1 to 3 filed separate counters traversing the material allegations made in the complaint.  In the counter of 1^st respondent it is submitted that she entered into development agreement with 2^nd respondent and as the 2^nd respondent failed to start construction within time she has cancelled the agreement and entered into a new agreement with E. Ravi Raju who started the construction of the apartment and at the time of cancellation of earlier agreement the complainants and the 2^nd respondent have agreed in the presence of elders to take back the advance amount as the complainants were not interested to purchase the flat in the said building and have received 2,50,000/- from the 1^st respondent and passed a receipt to that effect.  It is averred that the consumer forum at Vizianagaram is not entitled to entertain the complaint and that the consumer Forum at Visakhapatnam is only having jurisdiction to entertain the complaint as mentioned in clause 25 of the development agreement.  It is averred that on 19-4-2012 the agreement entered into in between O.Ps. 1 and 2 was cancelled and the 2^nd O.P. gave an affidavit stating that he had no objection in case the 1^st respondent enters into the development agreement in respect of the property with any 3^rd person.  It is averred that there are no bonafides in the complaint and as the same merits no consideration is liable to be dismissed.

          In the counter of 2^nd O.P. it is averred as per development agreement 4 flats i.e., G-1, G-2 in ground floor & F-1 in 1^st floor, and S-1 in 2^nd floor fell towards his share while flat No.F.2 in 1^st floor and flat No.S.2 fell towards the share of 1^st O.P. and the flats were intended to be sold to various clients under sale agreements.  Flat No.G.1 was agreed to be sold to complainants for a total consideration of Rs.9,50,000/- for which a sale agreement was executed by O.Ps. 1 and 2 and flat No.G.2 was sold to Mr. D.Krishna Murty Raju and Smt.Venkata Saila Bala, and Flat No.S-1 to Mr. G.Kurmi Naidu & Smt Sridevi, whereas the 4^th flat which fell to the 2^nd respondent was mortgaged to Vizianagaram Municipality as per new rules for obtaining plan approval.  It is averred that out of 4 flats the 2^nd O.P. registered two flats as builder, and remaining two flats i.e., G.1 and F.1 were to be registered.  During the process of construction loan for flat No. S.1 was delayed for 6 months upon which the 2^nd O.P. approached the purchasers of G.1 and G.2 to make payments of their share of amounts so that he can keep the work in progress and both the purchasers made the payments to O.P.2 as he was in need of amounts to meet the cost of construction of the building and purchase of raw materials etc.  In the said process both the parties paid him major part of consideration amount and the complainants retained an amount of Rs.65,000/- towards stamp duty, registration fee etc for flat No.G.1.  It is averred after making construction the 2^nd O.P. approached municipal authorities Vizianagaram for completion certificate and sought for release of the mortgaged flat i.e.,. F.1 and after inspection the authorities agreed to release NOC and certificate of release of mortgaged flat No.F.1 which was agreed to be sold to Mr.D.Eswarar Rao for which some amount was collected and a sum of Rs.3,50,000/- was left as balance to be paid at the time of registration of the said flat.  It is averred that when the father of the 2^nd respondent had suffered brain stroke and was hospitalized the 1^st O.P. expressed her desire for cancellation of development agreement as she had the will to get some more works to be executed inside her share of flats and as the health condition of the father of the 2^nd O.P. was serious and as some minor works were to be done by the 2^nd O.P., he accepted for cancellation of the development agreement and the 1^st O.P. has expressed her desire to collect the balance of payment from purchasers of respective flats and finally a cancellation deed was executed on 19-4-2012 with their mutual consent.  It is averred that in a short while the 1^st O.P. approached the 2^nd O.P. and made a proposal to take back flat No.G.1 from the complainants and when the latter agreed to receive a sum of Rs.12,60,000/- towards the total consideration of flat G.1 in presence of 2^nd O.P. for which O.P.1 gave a token advance of Rs.10,000/- and agreed to pay balance of Rs.12,50,000/- in 30 days time and it was further agreed that in case O.P.1 fails to pay the amount she should register flat No.G.1 in favour of complainants, and in case the balance amount is paid by O.P.1 the complainants should withdraw from the sale agreement.  It is averred that after receiving a notice the 2^nd O.P. approached the 1^st O.P. and enquired about the transaction upon which she assured that she will pay the balance amount otherwise she will register flat No.G.1 in favour of complainants.  It is averred that some days later the 2^nd O.P. could know that 1^st O.P. did not fulfill her part of obligation nor did she effect registration of the sale deed in favour of complainants.  It is further averred that O.P.2 came to know that 1^st O.P. has alienated that G.1 to 3^rd party.  It is averred that there is no deficiency of service on the part of 2^nd O.P. and as the petition merits no consideration the same is liable to be dismissed against O.P.2.

          In the counter of 3^rd respondent it is averred that 1^st respondent is the owner of the site and she has entered into a development agreement with 2^nd O.P who failed to complete the construction, and got the development agreement  cancelled and gave consent to 1^st respondent to entrust the work to some other builder for its completion.   It is averred that O.P.3 having verified the records has agreed to complete the work and as 1^st O.P. having paid the necessary amount he completed the construction work upon which the 1^st respondent sold away the flat G.1 to one S.Ramesh who is now in a possession and enjoyment of said flat.  It is averred that O.P.3 is not aware of the transaction between the complainants and O.P.1 and 2 and is no way concerned with the transaction made in between them and as this O.P. is not a necessary party to the case, and as the complaint is devoid of merits the same be dismissed against him with costs.

          In furtherance of complainants case, chief affidavit of P.W.1 is filed and Ex.A.1 to A.36 are marked.   On behalf of O.P.1 affidavit evidence of R.W.1 is filed and Ex.B.1 to Ex.B.9 are marked on behalf of O.P.1 the affidavit evidence of R.W.2 is filed.

          Now the point for consideration is whether the complainants are entitled to get the reliefs prayed for ?

1.  Basing on the evidence available on record, the learned counsel for  

complainants has contented that the 1^st O.P. having entered into a development agreement with 2^nd O.P. who is a developer has delivered the site in MIG 91 for its development and as per the contents of the said agreement, the 2^nd O.P. has to construct the apartment building and for the construction activity done by him she allotted plot No.G.1 and under Ex.A.2 sale agreement, the said G.1 was  intended to be sold to the complainants for a total sum of Rs.9 Lakhs and on various dates the complainants have paid a sum of Rs.8,85,000/- and the balance consideration amount to be paid by them is only Rs.65,000/-  and though the complainants were always ready and willing to pay the balance amount, the O.Ps. 1 and 2 did not execute registered sale deed and did not deliver the same to them and as the O.Ps. 1 and 2 were dereliction in their duties and as there is deficiency in service on their part the complainants are entitled to get  the reliefs prayed for.

          As against the above said contention the learned advocate for O.P.1 has contended that the O.P.2 did not make construction as per the terms and conditions of the development agreement and when O.P.2 expressed his inability to make construction of the building, the 3^rd O.P. was asked to make construction of the building and as the complainants did not pay any amount to her, the complaint is liable to be dismissed with costs.

          As seen from the material placed on record, it is manifest that the 1^st O.P. is the owner of the site admeasuring 263.33 Sq.yds in plot No.MIG 91 in A.P.Housing Board, Alakananda Colony, Vizianagaram and has entered into Ex.A.35 copy of development agreement which corresponds to Ex.B.8 with O.P.2.  The above said agreement was executed in between O.Ps. 1 and 2 on 11.4.2007 and as seen from its contents the 2^nd O.P. agreed to make construction of ground, 1^st, 2^nd floors at his cost and was authorized to retain 4 number of flats as detailed in Ex.B.1 schedule.    As per clause 19 of the said agreement, the 2^nd O.P. is entitled to enter into an agreement of sale or lease etc in respect of the share that has fallen to him other than the flats allotted to 1^st O.P. the complainants have contended in this complaint as well as in evidence of P.W.1 that the O.Ps. 1 and 2 jointly agreed to sell the flat No.G.1 in the ground floor for a sum of Rs.9,50,000/- in favour of complainants under Ex.A.2 sale agreement and on various dates the complainants paid a total sum of Rs.8,85,000/- and were due Rs.65,000/-.  To substantiate the above said contention they have filed the original sale agreement which is marked as Ex.A.2 and the receipts marked as Ex.A.1, Ex.A.3 to Ex.A.30.  As seen from the contents of the Ex.A.2, both the O.Ps 1 and 2 have agreed to sell flat No.G.1 in ground floor for a sum of Rs.9,50,000/- and a sum of Rs.50,000/- was received  as advance consideration under the sale agreement from the complainants.  Since, the 1^st O.P. is a party to Ex.A.2, sale agreement she cannot disown her responsibility and liability and is bound by its terms and conditions. 

          In the counter filed by the 1^st O.P., it is averred in para 4, that she has entered into development agreement with the 2^nd O.P. and as the 2^nd O.P. failed to start construction within time she has cancelled the agreement and entered into a new development agreement with one Ravi Raju who started construction of the building.    At the time of cancellation of development agreement, the complainants approached the 2^nd O.P. and at the instance of elders, the complainants agreed to take back the advance amount as they were not interested to purchase the flat and have received a sum of Rs.2,50,000/- from the 1^st O.P. and passed receipt to that effect.  In para 6 of the counter it is averred that on 9.4.2012 the developer Vijayaanand cancelled the development agreement and in his counter and affidavit he has stated that he had no objection if O.P.1 enters into any development agreement in respect of the said flat with any third party.

          The contents of the above said counter of the 1^st O.P. are contrary to the oral and documentary evidence placed by the respective parties on record.  In the counter it is simply stated that the 2^nd O.P. failed to start construction within time upon which the 1^st respondent cancelled the said agreement and entered into a new development agreement with one Ravi Raju.  She did not disclose whether any construction was made by the 2^nd O.P. in pursuance of Ex.B.1 development agreement and as to when she has cancelled the development agreement and entered into a new development agreement with Ravi Raju.  Ex.B.2 is the affidavit alleged to have been given by the 2^nd O.P.   Ex.B.3 is the copy of cancellation deed dt.19-4-2012 and Ex.B.4 is the copy of development agreement entered into between 1^st O.P. and the 3^rd O.P.

          As seen from the contents of Ex.B.2 to B.4 documents the 2^nd O.P. made the construction of the building in pursuance of the Ex.B.1 development agreement and as the construction was not completed the cancellation deed was executed on 19-4-2012 and a fresh development agreement was executed on the same day by the 1^st O.P. in favour of 3^rd O.P. 

Since the OPs.1 and 2 have entered into Ex.B.1 development agreement and as it was in force till the execution of Ex.B.2 to B.4, the 1^st O.P. is bound by the contents of B.1 agreement and as seen from the contents of B.1 the 2^nd O.P. was given 4 flats including G.1 and was authorized to enter into agreement of sale or lease in respect of the flats allotted to him other than the flats allotted to 1^st O.P.  The 1^st O.P. was given S.2 in 2^nd floor and F.1 in 1^st floor.  As we have already stated supra, the OPs. 1 and 2 have executed Ex.A.2 sale agreement in favour of the complainants on 20-6-2008  and as the 2^nd O.P. received a total consideration of Rs.8,85,000/- from the complainants for G.1 under Ex.A.1, A.3 to A.30 receipts and though the earlier development agreement was cancelled and a new development agreement was entered into between O.Ps. 1 and 3 subsequent to various payments made by the complainants to O.P.2,  all the O.Ps. are bound by the terms and conditions of Ex.A.2 sale agreement, as the same was not cancelled and is in force till date.

In the counter of 2^nd O.P. it is specifically averred that as per development agreement four flats i.e., G.1, G.2 in ground floor F.1 in 1^st floor and S.1 in 2^nd floor fell towards his share and flat No.F.2 in 1^st floor and S.2 fell to the share of 1^st O.P. and flat No.G.1 was agreed to be sold to the complainants for a total consideration of Rs.9,50,000/- for which a sale agreement was executed by the O.Ps. 1 and 2 and F.1 flat which was fell to the share of 2^nd O.P. was mortgaged to Vizianagaram Municipality for obtaining plan approval and  as the construction of building was delayed, O.P.2 has approached the purchasers of flat G.1 and G.2 to make payment of sale consideration so that he can keep the work in progress and both the purchasers have made payments whenever O.P.2 required amount to meet the expenditure of construction of building and during the said process, the complainants paid major part of sale consideration and became due a sum of Rs.65,000/- which was meant for stamp duty, registration fee etc.,, It is averred when he finally completed construction he approached the authorities of Vizianagaram Municipality for completion certificate and sought for release of mortgage flat i.e., F.1 and after inspection no objection certificate and certificate of release of mortagae of flat No.F1 were given.  It is averred as the father of 2^nd O.P. suffered from brain stroke and was hospitalized on the insistence made by 1^st O.P., they cancelled the development agreement as she wanted to get some more work to be done inside her share of flats as per her wish.  It is averred that some minor work was pending and as the health condition of the father of 2^nd O.P. was serious, he accepted her proposal and on 19-4-2012, the deed was cancelled with mutual consent, and when O.P.1 made a proposal to take back flat No.G.1 from the complainants and after a prolonged discussion both of them have arrived at an understanding and the complainants have agreed to receive a sum of Rs.12,60,000/- towards the total consideration for the said flat G.1, for which the O.P.1 has given a token advance of Rs.10,000/- and agreed to pay the balance amount of Rs.12,50,000/- in 30 days time failing which the O.P.1 would register flat No.G.1 in favour of the complainants.

The above said positive contents made by 2^nd O.P. in his counter as well as in the affidavit evidence, the O.Ps.1 and 3 did not deny the same by filing any rejoinders.  In the affidavit evidence of O.P.1, she has clearly stated that as per gentleman agreement herself and O.P.2 have cancelled the development agreement on 19-4-2012 and on the same day she entered into a development agreement with O.P.3 and on 22-4-12, the complainants received Rs.10,000/- from her as a token advance and issued a receipt to that effect, in presence of elders towards the amount due to complainants by O.P.2.  It is further averred that on 23-6-12 the O.P.1 has paid a sum of Rs.2,50,000/- to the complainants under a receipt and she has made the said payment as per settlement made in the presence of elders. 

In the counter of O.P.3 it is averred that he has completed the construction work after receiving the amounts as agreed between the parties and the 1^st O.P. sold away flat No.G.1 to one S.Ramesh of Vizianagaram who took possession of the said house and is enjoying the same.  If really the 1^st respondent is true in her contention that she has nothing to do with the payments made by the complainants to O.P.2, she has no right to sell the flat No.G.1 as the same fell to the share of O.P.2.  As we have already stated supra in the affidavit as well in the counter filed by 2^nd O.P. it is clearly averred that the O.P.1 agreed to pay Rs.12,60,000/- towards the total consideration for G.1 to the complainants and a sum of Rs.10,000/- was given as token advance and the 1^st O.P. has agreed to pay the balance of Rs.12,50,000/- in 30 days time.   The above said contention raised by the 2nd O.P. was not disputed by the O.Ps. 1 and 3 and the O.P.1 did not examine any of the mediators to prove         that she  did not agree in their presence to pay a sum of Rs.12,60,000/- towards total consideration of G.1 to the plaintiffs.  Hence we are of the considered opinion that the 1^st O.P. has agreed to pay Rs.12,60,000/- to the complainants towards consideration of G.1 and paid token advance of Rs.10,000/- under Ex.B.5 receipt and paid another sum of Rs.2,50,000/- to them under Ex.B.6 and became due the balance amount of Rs.10,00,000/-.  If really the 1^st O.P. has nothing to do with the payments made by the complainants to O.P.2 under receipts towards consideration of G.1 she would not have paid Rs.10,000/- under Ex.B.5 and Rs.2,50,000/- under Ex.B.6 to the complainants.  As the O.P.1 sold away flat No.G.1 to one Ramesh as stated by the 3^rd O.P. in his counter she is alone liable to pay Rs.10 lakhs to the complainants as agreed in the presence of 2^nd O.P and mediators. 

Since the 1^st O.P. is in dereliction of her duties and as there is deficiency of service on her part for promising to pay Rs.10 lakhs to the complainants as agreed in the presence of 2^nd O.P. towards the balance sale consideration of G.1, she is liable to pay the said amount to the complainants with nominal interest of 9% from the date of Ex.B.6 dt.23-6-12 till the date of realization.  Since the complainants did not get a registered sale deed and possession of G.1 flat inspite of payments made by them under Ex.A.1, A.3 to A.30, they must have suffered mental agony and discomfort.  Hence, they are entitled to get damages as well as the costs of the complaint.

The learned advocate for O.P. has contended that as per clause 25 of development agreement in the event of any dispute that would arise in between the parties the courts in Visakhpatnam were only given the jurisdiction to entertain the complaint and as such the Forum at Vizianagaram is lacking jurisdiction to try the case.   As against the above said contention the learned counsel for complainant has contended that an agreement in between the parties cannot override statutory right conferred by provisions of C.P.Act in conferring  jurisdiction in the relevant court or Forum in a particular district.

As seen from the material placed on record, the property in dispute situates in Vizianagaram and as per Ex.A.2 sale agreement, the 1^st O.P. is a resident of Alankananda Colony, Vizianagaram where the disputed property is situated.  As per Sec.12 of C.P.Act, the complaint shall be instituted in a District Forum within local limits of whose jurisdiction the O.P. or each of the O.Ps or where there are more than one, at the time of the institution of the complaint, actually and voluntarily  resides.  Since, the 1^st O.P. resides in Vizianagaram the Forum at Vizianagaram is entitled to get jurisdiction to try the case.

In a decision reported in III (2013) C.P.J. page 150 MAHY COMPANY SEEDS LTD., Vs SUBASH SRIHARI DEVKORE AND OTHERS WHEREIN it was held:  Agreement in between the parties by itself cannot override statutory right conferred by provisions of C.P.Act.

In the result, the complaint is partly allowed directing the 1^st O.P. to pay a sum of Rs.10 Lakhs (Rupees ten lakhs only) with interest at 9% p.a., from                 23-6-2012 till the date of payment and to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only) towards damages and also to pay Rs.2,000/- (Rupees two thousand only) towards costs which includes the advocate fee of Rs.1000/- (Rupees one thousand only).  The complaint / petition against O.P’s 2 and 3 is dismissed.  The O.P.1 is directed to comply the order within one month from the date of this order.

Dictated to the Typist, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced by us in the open Forum, this the 4^th day of September, 2014.

Member                                                           President.

CC. 6 of 2013

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

     For P.W.1                                                                  For R.W.1                                                                               

DOCUMENTS MARKED

For complainant:-

1. Ex.A.1 (Original) Receipt for Rs.5,000/- dt.16-6-2008
2. Ex.A.2 (Original) Sale agreement dt.20-6-2008
3. Ex.A.3 (Original) Receipt for Rs.50,000/-  dt.20-6-2008
4. Ex.A.4 (Original) Receipt for Rs.20,000/- dt.24-7-2008
5. Ex.A.5 (Original) Receipt for Rs.30,000/- dt.24-7-2008
6. Ex.A.6 (Original) Receipt for Rs.50,000/- dt.14-8-2008
7. Ex.A.7 (Original) Receipt for Rs.5,000/- dt.15-9-2008
8. Ex.A.8 (Original) Receipt for Rs.40,000/- dt.15-9-2008

 9. Ex.A.9(Original) Receipt for Rs.10,000/- dt.15-9-2008

10.Ex.A.10 (Original) Receipt for Rs.1,00,000/- dt.15-4-2009

      11.Ex.A.11 (Original) Receipt for Rs.50,000/- dt.3-8-2009

      12. Ex.A.12 (Original) Receipt for Rs.1,00,000/- dt.17-11-2009

      13. Ex.A.13 (Original) Receipt for Rs.10,000/- dt.17-11-2009

      14. Ex.A.14 (Original) Receipt for Rs.55,000/- dt.29-12-2009

      15. Ex.A.15 (Original) Receipt for Rs.25,000/- dt.10-1-2010

      16. Ex.A.16 (Original) Receipt for Rs.45,000/- dt.6-2-2010

      17. Ex.A.17 (Original) Receipt for Rs.10,000/- dt.10-2-2010

      18. Ex.A.18 (Original) Receipt for Rs.10,000/- dt.14-2-2010

      19. Ex.A.19 (Original) Receipt for Rs.25,000/- dt.24-2-2010

      20. Ex.A.20 (Original) Receipt for Rs.25,000/- dt.1-4-2010

      21. Ex.A.21 (Original) Receipt for Rs.5,000/- dt.28-4-2010

      22. Ex.A.22 (Original) Receipt for Rs.25,000/- dt.21-5-2010

      23. Ex.A.23 (Original) Receipt for Rs.50,000/- dt.24-5-2010

      24. Ex.A.24 (Original) Receipt for Rs.20,000/- dt.14-6-2010

      25. Ex.A.25 (Original) Receipt for Rs.25,000/- dt.26-6-2010

      26. Ex.A.26 (Original) Receipt for Rs.5,000/- dt.22-7-2010

      27. Ex.A.27 (Original) Receipt for Rs.5,000/- dt.15-8-2010

      28. Ex.A.28 (Original) Receipt for Rs.15,000/- dt.20-10-2010

      29. Ex.A.29 (Original) Receipt for Rs.20,000/- dt.20-12-2010

      30. Ex.A.30 (Original) Receipt for Rs.50,000/- dt.5-3-2011

      31. Ex.A.31 Office copy of lawyer’s notice dt.4-12-2012

      32. Ex.A.32 (Original) Ack., dt.7-12-12

      33. Ex.A.33 (original) Ack., dt.8-12-2012

      34. Ex.A.34 Original Reply lawyer’s notice dt.20-12-2012

      35. Ex.A.35  Xerox copy of Development Agreement dt.11-4-2007

      36. Ex.A.36 Original Detailed schedule of payments

For O.P:-   

1. Ex.B.1 Development Agreement dt.11-4-2007 (Original)
2. Ex.B.2 consent Affidavit Xerox copy 
3. Ex.B.3 Cancellation of development agreement dt.19-4-12
4. Ex.B.4 Development agreement dt.19-4-2012
5. Ex.B.5 Ack., dt.22.4.12
6. Ex.B.6 Receipt for Rs.2,50,000/- dt.23-6-2012
7. Ex.B.7 Demand Lawyer’s notice dt.4-12-2012
8. Ex.B.8 Development Agreement dt.11-4-2007
9. Ex.B.9 Laywer notice dt.20-12-2012.

                                                                                                President.