Date of filing: 01.06.2017 Date of order : 17.05.2019
BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM ::
KADAPA, Y.S.R DISTRICT
PRESENT SMT. K. SIREESHA, B.L., PRESIDENT (FAC)
SRI N. NIRANJAN BABU, B.A, B.L., MEMBER
Friday, 17th day of May, 2019
CONSUMER COMPLAINT No. 37 / 2017
B. Sivanand, S/o B. Vijayanand, aged 31 years,
R/at Flat No. 303, JSR Residency, Opposite to
SPIRITS College, RIMS Road, Kadapa city, YSR District. …. Complainant.
Vs.
1. M/s JSR Constructions, A partnership Firm Regd. No. 159/2013,
Rep. by its Managing Partner, J. Sivarami Reddy,
D.No. 1/2436, APHB Colony, Kadapa City YSR District.
2. J. Siva Rami Reddy, S/o J. Sankar Reddy, aged about 55 years,
Managing Partner of M/s JSR Constructions, D.No. 1/2436,
APHB Colony, Kadapa City YSR District
3. J. Parvathamma, W/o J. Sivarami Reddy, aged about 55 years,
Partner of M/s JSR Constructions, D.No. 1/2436, APHB Colony,
Kadapa City, YSR District ….. Opposite Parties.
This complaint coming for final hearing on 10.5.2019 in the presence of Sri G. Trivikram Singh, Advocate for complainant and Sri P.V. Ramana Reddy, Advocate for opposite parties 1 to 3 and upon perusing the material papers on record, the Forum made the following:
O R D E R
(Per Smt. K. Sireesha, President FAC),
1. The complainants filed this complaint under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short herein after called as C.P. Act) to direct the opposite parties to execute a registered sale deed in respect of schedule mentioned flat No. 303 property with car parking facility within 30 days.
2. The brief facts of the complaint is as follows: Opposite party No. 1 is the land owner / builder with a registered partnership firm bearing No. 159/2013. O.P.2 is the Managing Director and O.P.3 is a partner of O.P.1. All are responsible for the activities of their business. The complainant entered into agreement of sale of un-divided share of land with semi finished flat bearing No. 303. The sale consideration was Rs. 20,00,000 and the complainant has paid total consideration for the same the O.P.1 and 2 executed an agreement of sale dt. 01.9.2014 in favour of complainant. As per terms of the unregistered agreement of sale dt. 01.9.2014 the O.Ps are liable to construct the apartment and bound to handover the possession of ‘B’ schedule flat bearing No. 303 by the end of 12 months i.e. 01.9.2015 from the date of agreement. But the opposite parties utterly failed to complete the apartment within stipulated time and caused much delay. After so much delay the opposite parties delivered the possession of the flat to the complainant and the complainant took over the possession. After taking possession the complainant made several requests to the opposite parties to register the flat in his name. But they postponed the same on one or other pretext. Even after 1 ½ year time the opposite parties did not performed their part of obligation.
Schedule A
All that piece and parcel of land bearing Ac. 1.00 cents or 0.405 Hectors or 4840 Sq.yards out of site left for master plan road i.e. or 4627 Sp. Yards in Sy. No. 609 of Mamillapalli Revenue village, Kadapa Municipal Corporaton, Kadapa city is bounded by:
East : site sold by K. Ramagopal Reddy to others.
West : Site belongs to Annaluru Vijayalakshi.
North : B Block.
South : Main Road. Within these total admeasuring 4627 Sp. Yards.
Schedule B
Eroding part of the “A schedule” property herein above and the property sold to the purchase under this and 4627 1/45th undivided un-equivalent share of land in the “A schedule property is equeal of 55 Sq.yards site, flat No. 303 situated in third floor measuring 1670 Sq.feets including common area along with car parking facility in A Block in “JSR Residency” residential apartments by the first party / vendor located in the lands of Mamillapalli Revenue village as declared in schedule A in Kadapa Municipal Corporation, Kadapa city, to the second party / vendee with all easement right pertaining to the said flat bounded by :
East : Open to sky.
West : Corridor and flat No. 307.
North : Flat No. 302
South : Open to sky.
There is gross negligence and deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. Hence, the complaint.
3. Written version filed on behalf of the opposite parties 1 to 3. All the allegations are false and must be proved by documentary evidence. O.Ps 1 to 3 are having a registered firm is true. The complainant has paid total consideration for flat No. 303 of Rs. 20,00,000 are false. The complainant and other opposite parties partners are having grudges at the time of execution of relinquishment agreement for releasing the rights by the father of the complainant by name B. Vijayanand and other partners. It is utterly false to state that as per the agreement of sale the O.Ps are bound to construct the flat No. 303. The agreement of sale clearly reflects that O.P.3 has not executed any document much less agreement of sale dt. 01.9.2014. As per terms and conditions of the alleged agreement of sale as on the date only the possession in respect of the flat No. 303 was delivered in favour of the complainant by O.P.2 on behalf of O.P.1. The complainant had taken possession of flat No. 303 and residing in the same. There is no agreement to register the same in favour of the complainant. The complainant is well aware that in respect of flat No. 303 and the opposite parties delivered the possession to one M. Ramamohan prior to alleged agreement of sale dt. 01.9.2014. The complainant fraudulently and purposefully brought the allegations and suppressing the material facts with a view to get wrongful gain to harsh the opposite parties. At the first instance one M. Ramamohan purchased the flat No. 303. The father of the complainant gave false complaint against O.P.2 and kept him in illegal custody of police, taking an advantage duly managing the police, trespassed into the flat No. 303 highhandedly and blackmailing O.P.2 and concocted the story against O.P.1 to 3 and filed the present complaint to get wrongful gain. There is no documentary proof under the allegation of the complaint. The complaint is liable to be dismissed. The acts between the complainant and opposite parties are not within the purview of the Forum. Hence, the complaint may be dismissed.
4. On behalf of complainant Ex. A1 is marked and on behalf of the opposite parties Exs. B1 to B8 are marked.
5. From the above averments the following points are settled for determination:
- Whether the complainant is eligible for compensation as prayed by him or not?
- Whether there is negligence or deficiency of service on the part of the Opposite parties or not?
- To what relief ?
6. Point Nos. i and ii The complainant brought to the notice of the Hon’ble Forum to perform the registered sale deed in favour of the complainant by O.Ps. The complaint filed for specific performance. So this is not right Forum to file this case and the complainant is directed to file the case before the court of law for specific performance. As seen from the complaint and written version and documents on record, As per Ex. A1 it is very clear that there was unregistered agreement of sale deed executed by O.P.2 in favour of complainant. Ex. B1 is also an unregistered agreement of sale deed executed by O.P.1 and 2 in favour of one M. Ramamohan in respect of flat No. 303. As seen from the complaint and written version filed by both complainant and opposite parties, it is very clear that there was lot of litigation in between the complainant and the opposite parties. It needs lot of evidence to prove the same. The complaint was filed by the complainant for specific performance i.e. to execute a registered sale deed in respect of schedule mentioned property by the opposite parties. Ex. B2 to B6 are not relevant to the present complaint, these exhibits does not support the case of the complainant. Ex. B7 relates encumbrance on the property. As this complaint is purely in civil nature. This has to be decided before the proper court of law. Ex. B8 is a partnership agreement between the partners and O.P.2 relates to the land but not related to the flats. It clearly shows that this is a case of civil nature under specific performance act, as seen in any angle the complaint need a lot of evidence to dispose the case. Here, this is not a correct Forum to file the civil litigation. So the complainant is directed to go to Civil Court of law for proper adjudication.
7. Point No.iii: In the result, the complaint is dismissed without costs. The complainant is directed to approach the proper court of law.
Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced by us in the open forum, this the 17th day of May, 2019
MEMBER PRESIDENT (FAC)
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
Witnesses examined.
Witnesses examined for the Complainant:
Witnesses examined for the Opposite party: NIL
Exhibits marked for Complainant :
Ex.A1 Copy of Original Unregistered agreement of sale dt.01.09.2014 of undivided share of land with semi finished flat party executed by the opposite no.2 in the capacity of Managing Partner in favour of the complainant.
Exhibits marked on behalf of the Opposite parties :
Ex.B1 P/c of un Registered agreement of sale deed executed by O.P.1 & 2 in favour of one Mandla Ram Mohan, in respect of Flat No.303.
Ex.B2 P/c of Registered sale deed Doc. No.4016 dated 24.08.2017 executed by O.P.1 & 2 in favour of one R.Jaya Prathap Reddy, in respect of Flat No.202.
Ex.B3 P/c of Registered sale deed Doc. No.1332 dated 7.04.2017 executed by O.P.1 & 2 in favour of one Rama Thulasamma, in respect of Flat No.504.
Ex.B4 P/c of Registered sale deed Doc. No.4015 dated 24.08.2017 executed by O.P.1 & 2 in favour of one V.Jyothi, in respect of Flat No.108.
Ex.B5 P/c of Registered sale deed Doc. No.4342 dated 22.08.2015 executed by O.P.1 & 2 in favour of one Soma Murali, in respect of Flat No.302.
Ex.B6 Certified copy of Registered sale deed Doc. No.4014 dated 24.08.2017 executed by O.P.1 & 2 in favour of one Jaya Rathnamma, in respect of Flat No.201.
Ex.B7 P/c of Statement of encumbrance in respect of Flats of O.Ps firm.
Ex.B8 P/c of Partnership Agreement dated 22.07.2013 executed between O.P No.2 and other partners.
MEMBER PRESIDENT (FAC)
Copy to :
- Sri G. Trivikram Singh, Advocate for complainant.
- Sri P.V. Ramana Reddy, Advocate for opposite parties.
B.V.P.
