INDRANIL GHOSH Vs. PALLAB KUMAR KHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The facts in both the revision petitions are identical though the judgments of the Fora below are separate. The revisions were accordingly finally heard together and are being disposed of by common order.

(2.) The only difference between two revisions relates to flat numbers. In revision petition no.675/2008, the subject matter is flat No.4 with parking area, whereas in revision petition no.676/2008 subject matter is flat No.3 with car parking. Limited notice was issued in the revisions only in relation to the execution of conveyance deed for car park space on the ground floor. The Petitioner/Owner of the property and the Developer had categorically stated that they were willing to execute the conveyance deed in respect of the flats, in question. Therefore, the controversy in these revisions is restricted to the directions to the Petitioner/owner and Developer to execute the conveyance deed for car parking space.

(3.) Learned counsel for the Petitioner/owner submitted before us that in terms of agreement dated 1.6.1996 between his father and Developer, the owner was entitled to 60% of the constructed area and the Developer was entitled only to 40% of the constructed area. However, the entire ground floor including open space was to be handed over to the owner. The car parking is on the ground floor in respect of which there is no agreement between the Developer and the complainants; there was no whisper whatsoever regarding car parking space in agreement dated 22.4.1998 between the owner or Developer and the complainant; that the power of attorney given by the father of the Petitioner/owner to the Developer does not empower him to sell or transfer car parking space and it was only after delivery of 60% of the constructed area as owners share, the Developer was permitted to sell the balance 40% constructed area; that there was no privity of contract between the owner and the complainants vis -a -vis car parking area and that insufficient stamp documents could not be relied upon. In this connection, reliance was placed on the case of Chilakuri Gangulappa v. Revenue Divisional Officer, Madanpalle and another. It was stated that in the other revision the agreement in writing is not there.