Andhra Pradesh

Chittoor-II at triputi

CC/12/2016

M.Subramanyam, S/o.M.Bala Krishnaiah, aged 62 years - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/S Shrine Relators, rep.by its proprietor - Opp.Party(s)

Kanchi Syamala

29 Jul 2017

ORDER

Filing Date: 18.02.2016

Order Date:29.07.2017

 

 

 

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II,

CHITTOOR AT TIRUPATI

 

 

      PRESENT: Sri.M.Ramakrishnaiah, President ,

        Smt. T.Anitha, Member

 

 

 

SATURDAY THE TWENTY NINTH DAY OF JULY, TWO THOUSAND AND SEVENTEEN

 

 

 

C.C.No.12/2016

 

 

Between

 

 

M.Subramanyam,

S/o. M. Balakrishnaiah,

D.No.6-12-21/A4, K.B.Layout,

Tirupati.                                                                                             … Complainant.

 

And

 

 

M/s. Shrine Realtors,

Rep. by its Proprietor,

D.No.19-8-112/8 & 9, 2^nd floor, Sai Arcade,

AIR Bypass Road,

Tirupati.                                                                                             …  Opposite party.

 

 

 

 

            This complaint coming on before us for final hearing on 21.07.17 and upon perusing the complaint, written version and other relevant material papers on record and on hearing Kanchi Syamala, counsel for complainant, and Pervela Rambabu, counsel for opposite party, and having stood over till this day for consideration, this Forum makes the following:-

ORDER

DELIVERED BY SRI. M.RAMAKRISHNAIAH, PRESIDENT

ON BEHALF OF THE BENCH

           

            This complaint is filed under Section–12 of C.P.Act 1986, by the complainant  against the opposite party for the following reliefs 1) to direct the opposite party to return the registered sale deed in document No.1706/2013 dt:18.07.2013 executed by the opposite party in favour of the complainant, 2) to direct the opposite party to pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- to the complainant for causing mental agony and hardship, 3) to direct the opposite party to pay costs of the complaint, and to pass such other and further reliefs as the Forum deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.

            2.  The brief averments of the complaint are:-  That the opposite party is having house plots in Survey No.1/1,2, 2/2, 2/3, 2/4A, 2/4B, in an extent of Ac.18.37 cents, under the name and style of Venkatadri Nagar in Jinkalamitta @ Leelanadeswara Puram, and had allotted plot No.180 to the complainant, and the same was registered as document No.1706/2013 dt:18.07.2013 in the office of the Sub Registrar, Thottambedu, for a valid consideration of Rs.2,58,000/-. The complainant approached the Sub Registrar Office on the same day i.e. on 18.07.2013 after registration for taking the original sale deed, but the opposite party has taken away the original sale deed. When the complainant approached the opposite party, they stated that they will send the document within short period. Hence the complainant made representation to the Sub Registrar Office, Thottambedu on 19.02.2014 and 19.03.2014. The Sub Registrar sent a letter dt:26.03.2014 to the complainant stating that the opposite party received the registered document along with some other documents on 18.07.2013 itself. Since the date of registration, the complainant approached the opposite party several times personally. On 28.09.2014, the opposite party sent a letter stating that they will return the document on or before 25.10.2014. So, the complainant kept quiet, but even after lapse of the time given by the opposite party, they did not return the original sale deed. Finally, on 08.07.2015, the opposite party sent another letter stating that they will return the registered document on or before 06.08.2015, but till today they did not return the document. The complainant wants to construct a house by selling the plot, but for want of original sale deed, no one is coming forward to purchase the plot No.180. Hence the complaint.

            3. The opposite party filed its written version denying the complaint averments parawise, and further contended that the complainant is not a consumer and complaint is not a consumer complaint. That the opposite party never rendered any service to the complainant at any point of time. The opposite party never entered into any contract with the complainant.

            4. The opposite party further contended that the complainant purchased schedule mentioned property from one Ballapuram Padmavathi, Ballapuram Manorama, and their agent Ballapuram Vijaya Bhaskar, on 18.07.2013. There is no privity of contract between the opposite party and the complainant. That the opposite party infact is a partnership firm, but not a proprietary concern. The complainant suppressed the reply from Sub Registrar Office dt:26.03.2014, wherein the Sub Registrar stated in para No.2 that “I have already brought to your notice in my earlier letter vide reference 2^nd cited that the nominee of the presentant / executant has received all the 6 documents registered on 18.07.2013 duly affixed his signature including the document registered in favour of you”. In para No.3 it is stated that “though the document was registered in this office on 18.07.2013, your complaint after 7 months of its registration which shows your malafide intention to complain against this office”. From this it is evident that the person belonging to the complainant has received the document, details of the person were also enclosed with the letter of the Sub Registrar, Thottambedu.

            5.  The opposite party further contended that the name of the person, who received the document, is one B.Rusheendrababu, but not the opposite party. The said person is known to the complainant and both of them are playing fraud against the opposite party and misleading the Forum, infact the original document is with the complainant only. The opposite party without knowledge of the documents gave letters to the complainant with a good faith to help him. The complainant filed the complaint for wrongful gain. The complainant is not entitled to the reliefs sought for and prays the Forum to dismiss the complaint with costs.

            6.  In support of the case of the complainant, complainant himself filed his chief affidavit as P.W.1 and got marked Exs.A1 to A10. For the opposite party chief affidavit of R.W.1 is filed and reported no documents.

            7.  Now the points for consideration are:-

            (i).  Whether the opposite party is under obligation to handover the original

                  sale deed dt:18.07.2013 to the complainant?                    

            (ii).  Whether the complainant is entitled to the reliefs sought for?

            (iii).  To what relief?

            8.  Point No.(i):-  Admittedly, it is the opposite party who launched the house plots under the name and style of Venkatadri Nagar in Jinkalamitta @ Leelanadeswara Puram. The house plots were laid in the survey No.1/1, 2, 2/2, 2/3, 2/4A, 2/4B. Admittedly, the opposite party has allotted the plot No.180 to the complainant for Rs.17,70,000/- and entered into an agreement of sale dt:29.03.2013 with the complainant under Ex.A7. It is also admitted fact that the opposite party got executed a registered sale deed in respect of the said plot No.180 in favour of the complainant through the original owners of the said land by name Ballapuram Padmavathi, Ballapuram Manorama, and their agent Ballapuram Vijaya Bhaskar, on 18.07.2013. There is no direct contact between the complainant and the owners of the land or their agent. The opposite party being the realtor brought the entire transaction in selling the house plots to the complainant and others.

            9.  Admittedly, the complainant paid a sum of Rs.11,87,500/-  towards advance sale consideration to the opposite party on the date of agreement under Ex.A7, wherein the opposite party agreed to get the registered sale deed executed on payment of balance of sale consideration of Rs.5,82,500/- on or before 27.06.2013 to the opposite party. The said agreement of sale dt:29.03.2013 is signed by partner of the firm by name T.L.P.Anjaneya Kumar, on behalf of the opposite party firm. So, it is the responsibility of the opposite party to handover the original sale deed to the complainant after its registration. The GPA of original owners by name Ballapuram Vijaya Bhaskar, executed the registered sale deed in favour of the complainant and the same was also got signed by the owners Ballapuram Padmavathi and Ballapuram Manorama.

            10. The opposite party having entered into an agreement of sale with the complainant under Ex.A7 and having received a sum of Rs.11,87,500/- towards advance of sale consideration, out of total sale consideration of Rs.17,70,000/- and promised to get the sale registered through the owners of the land on payment of balance sale consideration, bluntly denied in its written version that the opposite party never entered into any contract with the complainant, that the complainant has purchased the schedule mentioned property from Ballapuram Padmavathi, Ballapuram Manorama and their agent Ballapuram Vijaya Bhaskar on 18.07.2013, and that there is no privity of contract between the opposite party with the complainant.

            11.  On the pleadings of both the parties, it can be safely held that it is the opposite party, who sold the plot No.180 to the complainant for a total sale consideration of Rs.17,70,000/-, it is the opposite party who entered into an agreement of sale under Ex.A7 with the complainant, and it is the opposite party who received a sum of Rs.11,87,500/- towards advance sale consideration on the date of agreement of sale under Ex.A7 from the complainant. Then, how the opposite party can say that it is in no way concerned with the transaction. That apart, it is the opposite party, who secured the presence of the original owners of the land i.e. Ballapuram Padmavathi, Ballapuram Manorama and their agent Ballapuram Vijaya Bhaskar, and it is the opposite party, who got executed the registered sale deed through the said  Ballapuram Padmavathi, Ballapuram Manorama and their agent Ballapuram Vijaya Bhaskar, the original owners on 18.07.2013, in favour of the complainant and got the same registered in the office of the Sub Registrar, Thottambedu. Having done all these things, the opposite party in order to escape from its liability, responsibility and obligation in handing over the original sale deed to the complainant speaking falsehood to the effect that the complainant purchased the plot from its owners and that the opposite party is in no way concerned, which cannot be accepted.

            12.  Another important admissions are that the opposite party has executed a letter under Ex.A3 dt:28.09.2014 promising that they will handover the original sale deed by 25.10.2014, this letter was signed by T.L.P.Anjaneya Kumar, on behalf of the Shrine Realtors. Similarly they have also executed another letter under Ex.A4 dt:08.07.2015 with the same contention as in Ex.A3, that they promised that the original sale deed will be handedover to the complainant by 06.08.2015, but the opposite party failed to comply with their own promises made under Exs.A3 and A4. The opposite party being he promisor has to perform his promise by the promisor himself as envisaged under Section-40 of the Indian Contract Act 1872 and none others. In the written version, the opposite party further contended that the complainant has suppressed the reply received from the Sub Registrar dt:26.03.2014, wherein it was stated in para No.2 that the Sub Registrar has already brought to the notice of the complainant in his earlier letter vide reference 2^nd cited that the nominee of the presentant / executant has received all the 6 documents including the document executed in favour of the complainant on 18.07.2013 and affixed his signature. So, his letter should be properly interpreted, but the opposite party is stating contrarily that the complainant himself has taken away the document and filed the complaint for wrongful gain. The word presentant / executant denotes the persons those who executed the documents i.e. the owners of the land or their agent. So, if the documents were taken away by the owners, the opposite party is under obligation to get back the original documents from the land owners and handover the same to the complainant. Knowing pretty well that the documents were taken away by the land owners, on that ground alone the opposite party has executed letters under Exs.A3 and A4. The opposite party is not the landlord and it is doing real estate business, so their contention that without knowing about the documents, they have simply executed letters under Exs.A3 and A4 only to help the complainant. This version cannot be sustained. That the opposite party has undertaken to handover the original document on a particular date to the complainant under Exs.A3 and A4 disowning its responsibility and promises made under Exs.A3 and A4, and taken a different plea to escape from its liability. The opposite party having got the sale deed registered / executed through the owners in favour of the complainant, having received a sum of Rs.11,87,500/- from the complainant under Ex.A7, opposite party cannot plead that they are nothing to do with the transaction. Simply by taking such irrelevant plea, it cannot absolve from its responsibility and liability in handing over the original sale deed dt:18.07.2013. The opposite party is bound to abide by its words under Exs.A3 and A4.  Under the above circumstances, we are of the opinion that the opposite party is under obligation to secure the original documents from the owners who executed the documents, and who received those documents from the Sub Registrar, Thottambedu, and handover the same to the complainant, but failed to do. Therefore, it can be safely held that the opposite party is under obligation to handover the original sale deed dt:18.07.2013 under document No.1706/2013 dt:18.07.2013 to the complainant. Accordingly, this point is answered. 

            13.  Point No.(ii):- In order to answer this point, it is pertinent to mention that as was held in point No.1, it is admitted fact that the opposite party launched the house plots under the name and style of “Venkatadri Nagar” and it sold plot No.180 to the complainant for Rs.17,70,000/- and entered into an agreement of sale under Ex.A7, on which date the opposite party has collected Rs.11,87,500/- as advance sale consideration from the complainant. Later it is also admitted fact that it is the opposite party who secured the presence of GPA of the land owners and land owners as well and got the sale registered on 18.07.2013 through Ballapuram Vijaya Bhaskar, GPA of the land owners, and the sale deed was also got signed by the owners, which clearly shows that the owners and their GPA have properly executed the sale deed in favour of the complainant, at the instance of the opposite party, as per the terms incorporated under Ex.A7 dt:29.03.2013. Subsequent to registration on 18.07.2013, the opposite party admitted under Exs.A3 and A4 letters dt:28.09.2014 and 08.07.2015 respectively, promising that they will handover the original sale deed and express regrets for delay in handing over the original sale deed to the complainant. But inspite of the promise made by the opposite party under Exs.A3 and A4, they failed to handover the original sale deed dt:18.07.2013.

            14.  In the written version, at page.4, para No.12, the opposite party contended that the complainant has suppressed the reply received from the Sub Registrar dt:26.03.2014 where the sub-registrar has categorically stated in para No.2 that “I have already brought to your notice in my earlier letter vide reference 2^nd cited that the nominee of the presentant / executant has received all the 6 documents registered on 18.07.2013 duly affixed his signature including the document registered in favour of you”. On the basis of this contention, opposite party has contended that the complainant has taken away the document and on another occasion, the opposite party contended that a person by name B.Rusheendrababu, who received those documents is known to the complainant and both of them playing fraud on the opposite party, that the opposite party is in no way concerned with the transactions, that the complainant has obtained the sale registered through the land owners. In the pleadings of either of the parties or in the evidence affidavit filed by the opposite party or in the written arguments filed on behalf of the opposite party nowhere it is mentioned that the complainant has approached the GPA holder of the original owners of the land or the original owners of the land at any point of time and he himself transacted with the land owners and purchased the plot No.180 from the original owners of the land. Therefore, the version so taken by the opposite party appears to be un-reliable. It is also evident on record that the opposite party is directly responsible for the entire transaction, as the opposite party itself has sold the plot No.180 to the complainant by collecting Rs.11,87,500/- from the complainant under Ex.A7 dt:29.03.2013 and it is also evident that this opposite party, who got sale registered through the land owners in favour of the complainant on 18.07.2013, but the complainant has no direct access to the land owners or their GPA at any point of time, either at the time of agreement of sale under Ex.A7 or by the date of registration of the sale deed on 18.07.2013. So, the relief sought for by the complainant appears to be quite reasonable and the complainant is entitled for the reliefs sought for. Accordingly, this point is answered.

            15.  Point No.(iii):-  in view of our holding on points 1 and 2, we have to state that the opposite party is under obligation to handover the registered sale deed dt:18.07.2013 in favour of the complainant, to the complainant. The words mentioned in the letter given by the Sub Registrar, Thottambedu dt:26.03.2014 under Ex.A2 to the effect that the nominee of the presentant / executant has received all the 6 documents registered on 18.07.2013 ……” clearly denotes that the land owners, who are the executants of the document, appointed a nominee and the said nominee has collected the documents from the Sub Registrar Office. So, it cannot be attributed to the complainant. The executant is the person, who executed the documents. The presentant is the person, who presented the documents for registration. So, at any cost complainant is not the executant or presentant. Therefore, in our opinion the opposite party is under obligation to collect the original documents from the landlord and handover the same to the complainant, as he is the realtor, who sold plot No.180 to the complainant admittedly. Simply, by stating that the original document is not available with the opposite party, the opposite party cannot be absolved from its liability. By saying so and by withholding the original sale deed dt:18.07.2013 without handing over the same to the complainant, the opposite party caused much mental agony and hardship to the complainant. In general no person will purchase any site or plot or house etc. without original documents. In this regard, the contention raised by the complainant is absolutely right. In view of those discussions, we are of the opinion that the complainant is entitled for the reliefs sought for and the complaint is to be allowed accordingly.

            In the result, complaint is allowed in part directing the opposite party to collect the original registered sale deed in document No.1706/2013 dt:18.07.2013 executed in favour of the complainant with regard to plot No.180 of Venkatadri Nagar from the real owners Ballapuram Padmavathi, Ballapuram Manorama and their agent Ballapuram Vijaya Bhaskar, and handover the same to the complainant or alternatively obtain the certified copy of the sale deed dt:18.07.2013 bearing No.1706/2013 from the office of the Sub Registrar, Thottambedu, with its own expenses, and handover the same to the complainant at an early date. The opposite party is also directed to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only) for the deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party and towards compensation for causing mental agony to the complainant. The opposite party is also directed to pay Rs.2,000/- (Rupees two thousand only) towards costs of the complaint. The opposite party is further directed to comply with the orders within six (6) weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order, failing which the compensation amount of Rs.50,000/- shall carry interest at 9% p.a. from the date of this order, till realization.

Dictated to the stenographer, transcribed and typed by him, corrected and pronounced by me in the Open Forum this the 29^th day of July, 2017.

 

       Sd/-                                                                                                                      Sd/-                               

Lady Member                                                                                                      President

 

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

 

Witnesses Examined on behalf of Complainant/s.

 

PW-1: M. Subramanyam (Chief Affidavit filed).

 

Witnesses Examined on behalf of Opposite PartY/S.

 

RW-1: D. Sudheer Kumar (Chief Affidavit filed).

 

EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE COMPLAINANT/s

 

Exhibits (Ex.A)	Description of Documents
	Certified true copy of Registered Sale Deed executed by the opposite party in favour of complainant Doc.No.1706/2013, Dt: 18.07.2013.
	Photo copy of Letter sent by the Sub Registrar, Thottambedu to the Complainant, Dt: 26.03.2014.
	Photo copy of Letter sent by the opposite party to the complainant, Dt: 28.09.2014.
	Photo copy of Letter sent by the opposite party to the complainant. Dt: 08.07.2015.
	Office copy of the Legal Notice issued by the Complainant. Dt: 10.11.2015.
	Acknowledgement  Card.
	Agreement of Sale 29.03.2013 entered by the opposite party with complainant in Original.
	Receipts 3 in number with regard to payment  in original.
	Advertisement Broacher with regard to Venkatadri Nagar.
	Advertisement Broacher all ventures laid by the opposite party including Venkatadri Nagar.

 

EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE OPPOSITE PARTY/s

 

                                                 -NIL-

 

                                                                                                                                    Sd/-

                                                                                                                      President

      // TRUE COPY //

// BY ORDER //

 

Head Clerk/Sheristadar,

           Dist. Consumer Forum-II, Tirupati.

         

Copies to:-     1.  The complainant.

                        2.  The opposite party.