E.KRISHNAPPA Vs. KIRANKUMAR
LAWS(NCD)-2020-2-91
NCDRC
Decided on February 20,2020

E.Krishnappa Appellant
VERSUS
Kirankumar Respondents

JUDGEMENT

V.K. Jain,J. - (1.) Classic Land Developers, a partnership firm, promoted a project namely Sree Balaji Nagar at Gowdahalli and Shivanapura villages Dasnapura Hoobly, Bangalore North, for forming residential plots for as many as 630 persons. Payment was collected by Classic Land Developers from the above-referred members. However, the project having not been developed by the said firm a Memo. of Understanding was executed between the Classic Land Developers and the petitioner herein, who was carrying business under the name and style of E.K. Land Developers, on 15.01.2004. On behalf of Classic Land Developer the agreement was executed by its partners, respondents No. 2 & 3, Mr. A. Balaji @ D.V. Madhava Rao and Mr. H.C. Ramesh. In terms of the MoU the petitioner Mr. E. Krishappa agred to complete the project which Classic Land Developer had initially promoted. The MoU dated 15.01.2004 would show that a meeting at his residence was held in which two proposals were given. The majority of the allottees/members accepted one out of those two proposals whereunder the petitioner was to convert the land for residential purposes as per the plans to be approved by the concerned authorities. A down payment of Rs. 20,000/- was to be paid by each allottee/member. The amount already paid to Classic Land Developers was to be adjusted out of the afore-said down-payment of Rs. 20,000/- and the balance amount was to be paid within nine months. All the balance payments were to be made to the petitioner by way of cheque/DD in the name of E.K. Developers. After registration, residential conversion and demarcation etc. Allotment letters were to be issued by the petitioner and on payment of the cost of the site, the same were to be registered in favour of the members. The cost of each site was agreed at Rs. 1,15,000/-.
(2.) The case of the complainants/respondents is that payment was collected from them by the opposite parties, the same being Mr. D.V. Madhava Rao and Mr. H.C. Ramesh, partners of the Classic Land Developers and Petitioner E. Krishnappa, partner of E.K. Land Developers. This is also their case that letters were sent to them by OP-1 and OP-2 in the consumer complaint to arrange the remaining balance amount and they had paid the remaining balance amount for which receipts were issued to them. This was also their allegations that the sites were not registered in their name despite they having several times visited the offices of the opposite parties, the prices of land in the locality having increased in the meanwhile. The complainants, therefore, approached the concerned District Forum by way of separate consumer complaints seeking registration of the sale deed of the sites in their favour.
(3.) The complaints were resisted by all the opposite parties including the petitioner herein. OP-1 Mr. D.V. Madhava Rao @ Mr. A. Balaji, inter alia, stated in his affidavit filed before the District Forum that the petitioner was appointed as the President of the society formed by the allottees and the funds of the association were in his name and in the name of the petitioner as well as his nominees who were his friends. It was also stated by him that the lay-out had been prepared by the petitioner who had been allotting sites to the members.;


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