SHEIKH SULTAN Vs. SUKANT DAWDA
LAWS(CHHCDRC)-2010-12-5
CHHATISGARH STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
Decided on December 28,2010

SHEIKH SULTAN Appellant
VERSUS
Sukant Dawda Respondents

JUDGEMENT

- (1.)THIS appeal is directed against order dated 08.02.2008 of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Raipur in Complaint Case No.50/2007, whereby the complaint was allowed and OPs were directed to execute the sale deed in favour of the complainant within a period of two months regarding the flat in question and to pay a sum of Rs.1000/ - towards damages and Rs.500/ - towards cost of litigation. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order, OP Nos. 1&2 have approached this Commission in the instant appeal.
(2.)BRIEF facts necessary for disposal of this appeal are that the complainant had entered in to agreement with the OPs for purchasing flat No. C -3 in Pushpak Apartment, 3rd Floor, Baijnath Para, Raipur and the aforesaid Agreement and Possession Certificate was executed on 26.09.1994. After taking possession of the flat, the complainant started paying relevant bills and taxes relating to the flat. The complainant repeatedly requested the OPs to execute the sale deed, as he had paid the entire consideration of Rs.2,60,000/ -, but the OPs, on some pretext or the other, delayed the matter. Suddenly, the complainant received the legal notice dated 13.01.2007 from the counsel for OP nos. 1&2, whereby the complainant was required to vacate the relevant premises. Hence, he filed complaint seeking direction to OPs to execute registered sale deed regarding the aforesaid flat, besides payment of damages and cost.
(3.)IN their joint written version OP nos. 1&2 resisted the complaint and raised preliminary objection that the complainant has filed the complaint taking the cause of action from issuance of notice dated 13.01.2007 and on the basis of the same notice, the OP Nos. 1&2 had also filed Civil Suit bearing No. 19 -A/07 before 7th Civil Judge, Raipur, which is still pending. In view of pendency of Civil Suit, the Complaint before the District Forum is not maintainable. The OPs had further raised an objection that the complainant has based his claim on the basis of forged document dated 26.09.1994, which is not properly stamped and in view of Provisions of Section 35 of Indian Stamp Act it cannot be taken in evidence. In parawise reply OP Nos. 1&2 had stated that the agreement executed between OP nos. 1&2 and OP no. 3 dated 14.06.1991 has been canceled by the answering OPs on 13.01.2007 and Civil Suit on the same cause of action has been filed. Hence, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the answering OPs are not liable to execute sale deed in favour of the complainant. It is further stated in the written version that the complaint is hopelessly time barred, hence it was prayed that the same be dismissed.
In written version OP no.3 had admitted that flat No. C -3 was agreed to be sold to the complainant and possession was also handed over after receiving the entire consideration. It is further stated that the said OP never had any objection in execution of sale deed in favour of the complainant. It was solely due to non -cooperation of OP nos. 1&2 that the sale deed could not be executed.



Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.