- (1.) THE order passed by the lower Forum dismissing the complaint is in our opinion not maintainable. On going through the records, we find that this is a fit case where the matter has to be remanded back to the lower Forum. The lower Forum has simply repeated in its order the averments made in the version. The lower Forum failed to advert its attention to the fact that the opposite party did not take any steps to see that the sale deed of the un -divided portion is registered in time. The Lower Forum also failed to advert to the fact that the Clauses 6 to 8 of the builder s agreement Ex. A6 provides for refund of the amount. The question of the complainant executing a reconveyance would arise only if there is a conveyance executed in his favour by the opposite party. The lower Forum failed to consider the conduct of the opposite party in not registering the sale deed. It simply lodged the sale deed with the Sub -Registrar s office and did not care to take back from the office of the Sub -Registrar, Alandur. There is absolutely no explanation by the opposite party why they did not take steps to have it registered and why they allowed it to be in the Sub -Registrar s office. On the other hand, we find the appellants were given notice of it by the Sub -Registrar, Alandur. The document was executed on 23.3.1999. It was presented for registration on the same day but it was registered only on 28.12.1999 after steps were taken by the complainant. This is an important aspect of the matter which was not at all been adverted to by the lower Forum.
(2.) THEREFORE , the finding of the lower Forum that the appellants have not made any attempt to apply for loan is untenable since the document was not immediately got registered by the opposite party. It is only on account of the efforts of the complainant, the document which was presented on 23.3.1999 came to be registered on 28.12.1999. Therefore, it is only after the documents were registered any steps can be taken by the complainant to approach the financial institution for raising the loan. In fact the appellants have expressed their readiness and willingness to pay the entire balance of Rs. 3,00,000 as demanded by the respondent in their letter dated 30.10.1999. The lower Forum also failed to consider Ex. A28 an advertisement made in the interest of public by National Housing Bank informing the public that under Section 31(4) of the National Housing Bank Act, 1987, Housing Finance Companies including India Housing Finance and Development Ltd., from which the opposite party promised to arrange a loan have been prohibited from accepting deposit from public. Therefore, the important fact that the opposite party failed to take steps to register the undivided share and their act in keeping the documents pending registration is an important circumstance which ought to have weighed with the lower Forum.
(3.) THEREFORE , the approach of the lower Forum is quite mechanical. It has failed to apply its mind to the facts and to the material available on record and in a blind folded fashion, it has chosen to accept the opposite party s complaint. Therefore, in such circumstances, we have no hesitation in holding that this is a matter that has to be remanded back to the lower Forum for fresh disposal in accordance with law. In this view of the matter, this appeal is allowed; the order passed by the lower Forum is set aside. The matter is remanded back to the lower Forum for fresh disposal in accordance with law. The lower Forum shall dispose of the matter within three months from the date of receipt of records.;