State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Smt.Devendramma And Othters ... vs Sri Shirdi Sai Estates And Others ... on 1 August, 2008
BEFORE THE A BEFORE THE A.P.STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION - AT HYDERABAD. FA.No.1754/2005 against CD.No.20/2004 District Consumer Forum, Mahabubnagagar. Between- Smt.Devendramma at the rate of Devendra Bai, W/o.Bhagth Singh, A/a 46 years, Occ- Housewife, R/o.Dandu Village, Makthal Mandal, Mahabubnagar Dist. Appellant/Complainant. And Sri Shirdi Sai Estates, Mahabubnagar, rep. by 1.The Manager, Sri Shirdi Sai Estates, H.No.8-3-3-BCD, Mettuguda, Mahabubnagar Dist. 2.B.V.Raghava Rddy, S/o.Panduranga Reddy, A/a 36 yrs. Occ- Business, R/o.H.No.8-3-3-BCD, Mettuguda, Mahabubnagar Dist. 3.B.Satyanarayana Singh, S/o.B.Ram Singh, A/a 49 yrs. Occ- Business, R/o.H.No.8-3-3-BCD, Mettuguda, Mahabubnagar Dist. 4.Md.Moin, S/o.Ameena Sab, A/a.44 yrs. Occ- Business, R/o.H.No.8-3-3-BCD, Mettuguda, Mahabubnagar Dist. 5.B.Pratap Reddy, S/o.Buchi Reddy, A/a 46 yrs. Occ- Business, R/o.H.No.8-3-3-BCD, Mettuguda, Mahabubnagar Dist. 6.B.Ram Reddy, S/o.B.Narayan Reddy, A/a.53 yrs. Occ- Business, R/o.H.No.8-3-3-BCD, Mettuguda, Mahabubnagar Dist. Respondents/Opp.Parties. FA.No.1755/2005 against CD.No.23/2004 District Consumer Forum, Mahabubnagagar. Between- B.Maheshwara Singh, S/o.Satyanarayan Singh, A/a 25 yrs. Occ- Business, R/o.H.No.2-28, Buddharam Village, Gopalpet Mandal, Mahabubnagar Dist. Appellant/Complainant. And Sri Shirdi Sai Estates, Mahabubnagar, rep. by 1.The Manager, Sri Shirdi Sai Estates, H.No.8-3-3-BCD, Mettuguda, Mahabubnagar Dist. 2.B.V.Raghava Rddy, S/o.Panduranga Reddy, A/a 36 yrs. Occ- Business, R/o.H.No.8-3-3-BCD, Mettuguda, Mahabubnagar Dist. 3.B.Satyanarayana Singh, S/o.B.Ram Singh, A/a 49 yrs. Occ- Business, R/o.H.No.8-3-3-BCD, Mettuguda, Mahabubnagar Dist. 4.Md.Moin, S/o.Ameena Sab, A/a.44 yrs. Occ- Business, R/o.H.No.8-3-3-BCD, Mettuguda, Mahabubnagar Dist. 5.B.Pratap Reddy, S/o.Buchi Reddy, A/a 46 yrs. Occ- Business, R/o.H.No.8-3-3-BCD, Mettuguda, Mahabubnagar Dist. 6.B.Ram Reddy, S/o.B.Narayan Reddy, A/a.53 yrs. Occ- Business, R/o.H.No.8-3-3-BCD, Mettuguda, Mahabubnagar Dist. Respondents/Opp.Parties. FA.No.1756/2005 against CD.No.26/2004 District Consumer Forum, Mahabubnagagar. Between- S.Raju, S/o.Simhaiah, A/a.28 yrs. Occ- Merchant, R/o.3-21, Buddharam Village, Gopalpet Mandal, Mahabubnagar Dist. Appellant/Complainant. And Sri Shirdi Sai Estates, Mahabubnagar, rep. by 1.The Manager, Sri Shirdi Sai Estates, H.No.8-3-3-BCD, Mettuguda, Mahabubnagar Dist. 2.B.V.Raghava Rddy, S/o.Panduranga Reddy, A/a 36 yrs. Occ- Business, R/o.H.No.8-3-3-BCD, Mettuguda, Mahabubnagar Dist. 3.B.Satyanarayana Singh, S/o.B.Ram Singh, A/a 49 yrs. Occ- Business, R/o.H.No.8-3-3-BCD, Mettuguda, Mahabubnagar Dist. 4.Md.Moin, S/o.Ameena Sab, A/a.44 yrs. Occ- Business, R/o.H.No.8-3-3-BCD, Mettuguda, Mahabubnagar Dist. 5.B.Pratap Reddy, S/o.Buchi Reddy, A/a 46 yrs. Occ- Business, R/o.H.No.8-3-3-BCD, Mettuguda, Mahabubnagar Dist. 6.B.Ram Reddy, S/o.B.Narayan Reddy, A/a.53 yrs. Occ- Business, R/o.H.No.8-3-3-BCD, Mettuguda, Mahabubnagar Dist. Respondents/Opp.Parties. FA.No.1757/2005 against CD.No.28/2004 District Consumer Forum, Mahabubnagagar. Between- B.Goverdhan Singh, S/o.B.Satyanarayana, A/a 30 yrs. Occ- Business, R/o.H.No.49-91/1, Wanaparthy, Mahabubnagar Dist. Appellant/Complainant. And Sri Shirdi Sai Estates, Mahabubnagar, rep. by 1.The Manager, Sri Shirdi Sai Estates, H.No.8-3-3-BCD, Mettuguda, Mahabubnagar Dist. 2.B.V.Raghava Rddy, S/o.Panduranga Reddy, A/a 36 yrs. Occ- Business, R/o.H.No.8-3-3-BCD, Mettuguda, Mahabubnagar Dist. 3.B.Satyanarayana Singh, S/o.B.Ram Singh, A/a 49 yrs. Occ- Business, R/o.H.No.8-3-3-BCD, Mettuguda, Mahabubnagar Dist. 4.Md.Moin, S/o.Ameena Sab, A/a.44 yrs. Occ- Business, R/o.H.No.8-3-3-BCD, Mettuguda, Mahabubnagar Dist. 5.B.Pratap Reddy, S/o.Buchi Reddy, A/a 46 yrs. Occ- Business, R/o.H.No.8-3-3-BCD, Mettuguda, Mahabubnagar Dist. 6.B.Ram Reddy, S/o.B.Narayan Reddy, A/a.53 yrs. Occ- Business, R/o.H.No.8-3-3-BCD, Mettuguda, Mahabubnagar Dist. Respondents/Opp.Parties. FA.No.1758/2005 against CD.No.29/2004 District Consumer Forum, Mahabubnagagar. Between- Boya Krishnaiah, S/o.Masaiah, A/a.38 yrs. Occ- Agriculture, R/o.H.No.1-58, Mahadevenpet, Bijinapally Mandal, Mahabubnagar Dist. Appellant/Complainant. And Sri Shirdi Sai Estates, Mahabubnagar, rep. by 1.The Manager, Sri Shirdi Sai Estates, H.No.8-3-3-BCD, Mettuguda, Mahabubnagar Dist. 2.B.V.Raghava Rddy, S/o.Panduranga Reddy, A/a 36 yrs. Occ- Business, R/o.H.No.8-3-3-BCD, Mettuguda, Mahabubnagar Dist. 3.B.Satyanarayana Singh, S/o.B.Ram Singh, A/a 49 yrs. Occ- Business, R/o.H.No.8-3-3-BCD, Mettuguda, Mahabubnagar Dist. 4.Md.Moin, S/o.Ameena Sab, A/a.44 yrs. Occ- Business, R/o.H.No.8-3-3-BCD, Mettuguda, Mahabubnagar Dist. 5.B.Pratap Reddy, S/o.Buchi Reddy, A/a 46 yrs. Occ- Business, R/o.H.No.8-3-3-BCD, Mettuguda, Mahabubnagar Dist. 6.B.Ram Reddy, S/o.B.Narayan Reddy, A/a.53 yrs. Occ- Business, R/o.H.No.8-3-3-BCD, Mettuguda, Mahabubnagar Dist. Respondents/Opp.Parties. FA.No.1759/2005 against CD.No.30/2004 District Consumer Forum, Mahabubnagagar. Between- Boya Bhaskaraiah, S/o.Balaiah, A/a.27 yrs. Occ- Agriculture, R/o.H.No.3-54, Mahadevenpet, Bijinapally Mandal, Mahabubnagar Dist. Appellant/Complainant. And Sri Shirdi Sai Estates, Mahabubnagar, rep. by 1.The Manager, Sri Shirdi Sai Estates, H.No.8-3-3-BCD, Mettuguda, Mahabubnagar Dist. 2.B.V.Raghava Rddy, S/o.Panduranga Reddy, A/a 36 yrs. Occ- Business, R/o.H.No.8-3-3-BCD, Mettuguda, Mahabubnagar Dist. 3.B.Satyanarayana Singh, S/o.B.Ram Singh, A/a 49 yrs. Occ- Business, R/o.H.No.8-3-3-BCD, Mettuguda, Mahabubnagar Dist. 4.Md.Moin, S/o.Ameena Sab, A/a.44 yrs. Occ- Business, R/o.H.No.8-3-3-BCD, Mettuguda, Mahabubnagar Dist. 5.B.Pratap Reddy, S/o.Buchi Reddy, A/a 46 yrs. Occ- Business, R/o.H.No.8-3-3-BCD, Mettuguda, Mahabubnagar Dist. 6.B.Ram Reddy, S/o.B.Narayan Reddy, A/a.53 yrs. Occ- Business, R/o.H.No.8-3-3-BCD, Mettuguda, Mahabubnagar Dist. Respondents/Opp.Parties. Counsel for the Appellant - Mr.VAgasthya Sarma. Counsel for the Respondents - Mr.L.Venugopal (for R. 3) Mr.V.Gourisankara Rao (for R.4) R.1, R.2, R.5 and R.6 served. QUORUM- THE HONBLE MR.JUSTICE D.APPA RAO, HONBLE PRESIDENT, SMT.M.SHREESHA,HONBLE LADY MEMBER, AND SRI G.BHOOPATHI REDDY, HONBLE MALE MEMBER.
FRIDAY, THE FIRST DAY OF AUGUST, TWO THOUSAND EIGHT.
Common Oral Order (Per Honble Mr.Justice D.Appa Rao, President)
-------
Heard both sides. Since all these appeals relate to the very same parties and the facts involved are also similar, we intend to dispose of these appeals by way of common order.
1. The complainants in CD.No.20, 23, 26, 28, 29 and 30 of 2004 preferred these appeals against the orders of the District Consumer Forum, Mahabubnagar, all dated 29.08.2005 directing opposite parties 1 to 3 to refund the amounts taken towards agreement with interest at 18 Percent per annum together with costs instead of directing them to execute registered sale deeds Complaints against opposite parties 4 to 6 were dismissed.
2. The case of the complainants in brief is that opposite parties 2 to 6 are partners and opposite party No.1 was manager of a venture by name Shiridi Sai Estates at Mahabubnagar. Opposite parties 1 to 3 purchased land situated at Kaverammapet Village of Jadcherla mandal for selling the same into house plots consisting of 150 square yards each and they started a scheme, wherein they had to pay Rs.400/- per month in 47 instalments. In addition to the said payment, they had also to pay Rs.1,000/- for every five months and Rs.3,000/- towards registration charges, altogether Rs.33,800/-. The scheme commences from August, 1998 and ends in June, 2003. Accordingly, they paid the amounts besides registration charges.
Opposite parties 1 to 3 have also issued receipts and promised to execute the registered sale deeds within fifteen days. When the complainants insisted for execution of registered sale deeds, the opposite parties 1 to 3 informed that the administration of firm was changed from them to opposite party No.4, and the venture was renamed as Baba Nagar and they also informed them to approach opposite party No.4 for further details. When they approached opposite party No.4 for registration of the plots, he postponed on one reason or other. Thereupon, they issued registered legal notices for which opposite party No.3 refused to register plots on the ground that the land stands in the name of opposite parties 4 to 6 and they are liable to register the plots. When they approached opposite parties 4 to 6, they refused to register the plots, and therefore, the complaints were filed seeking direction to opposite parties 1 to 6 to register plots in their favour or to refund Rs.39,800/- together with interest at 18 Percent p.a. besides compensation of Rs.5,000/- and costs.
3. Opposite parties 1, 2, 5 and 6 remained exparte.
4. Opposite party No.3 resisted the case. He denied that opposite parties 2 to 6 were partners of the firm. He admitted that opposite party No.1 is manager and opposite parties 2 to 4 are the partners and opposite parties 5 and 6 are land owners.
He admitted that the complainants had joined as members in the scheme and paid amounts as alleged and for which they (opposite party 3) issued receipts. When the complainants had approached them, they informed that they have transferred the venture in favour of opposite party No.4, who in turn would register plots in their favour. Opposite parties 1 to 3 were not aware if the complainants had approached opposite party No.4 in this regard. He along with opposite party No.2 purchased the property from opposite parties 5 and 6 on 26.01.1998 under agreement of sale and floated an venture, in the name of Dwaraka Nagar. They collected amounts for development of land, plotting, advertisement, etc. On 02.01.1999 opposite party No.4 along with opposite parties 5 and 6 approached opposite parties 2 and 3 and asked them to hand over the scheme with members to opposite party No.4. In a meeting dt.20.01.1999 the same was agreed and agreement dt.06.02.1999 was executed in favour of opposite party No.4. Accordingly opposite parties 5 and 6 executed registered sale deed dt.06.05.1999 after taking sale consideration. In fact he registered plots to some members. He did not pay any amount to them. Therefore, opposite party No.4 was alone liable to register the plots in favour of complainants. He prayed that the complaints be dismissed against them.
5. Opposite party No.4 filed separate counter alleging that the complainants were not entitled to any of the reliefs. He was not a partner nor he has nothing to do with the transactions between the complainants and opposite parties 1 to 3. He never received any amounts. The complainants had never approached him for registration of the plots. The receipts that were filed by the complainants were signed by opposite party No.3. He did not affix his signature. The documents that were filed by the complainants are purely concocted documents. He gave correct reply to the notice issued by them. Opposite parties 2 to 3 are habituated in starting housing schemes and after getting large amounts from public they are winding up. The receipts issued by them were in 1998 and 1999 and the complaint was filed in 2004. The complaint is barred by limitation. At any rate, he was not liable to execute the sale deeds or pay the amounts, and therefore, prayed for dismissal of the complaints with exemplary costs.
6. The complainants in proof of their case filed their affidavits and documents, Exs.A.1 to A.6. Opposite party No.3 filed his affidavit and documents, Exs.B.1 to B.11, while opposite party No.4 filed his affidavit and documents, Exs.B.12 to B.22. The District Forum after considering the evidence placed on record opined that there is no evidence to show that opposite party No.4 was acting as a managing partner along with opposite parties 1 to 3 in Sri Shiridi Sai Estates, nor has anything to do with the transactions. There is no proof that any amount was paid to opposite party No.4 nor he was liable to execute sale deeds in favour of the complainants. Since opposite party No.5 and 6 are land owners, they are not liable to register the plots or to refund the amounts to the complainants. Therefore, the complaints were allowed against opposite parties 1 to 3 with a direction to refund Rs.38,800/- to each complainant with interest at 18 Percent per annum together with costs of Rs.500/-. The complaints were dismissed against opposite parties 4 to 6.
7. Aggrieved by the said orders, the complainants preferred these appeals contending that the District Forum did not appreciate the facts in correct perspective. It ought to have appreciated that by virtue of execution of Exs.B.3 and B.4, the opposite party No.4 stepped into the shoes of opposite parties 1 to 3 and as such opposite party No.4 was liable to execute the sale deeds in their favour. They prayed that these appeals be allowed directing opposite party No.4 to execute the sale deeds in their favour.
8. It is an undisputed fact that opposite parties 5 and 6 are the owners of land situated at Kaverammapet village which they sold under registered agreement dated 26.01.1998 and 12.03.1998 in favour of opposite parties 2 and 3 vide Ex.B.1 and B.2 respectively. It is also not in dispute that opposite parties 1 to 3 floated a partnership firm under the name and style of Shri Shiridi Sai Estates. They sold plots after laying out plots after naming it as Dwarakamai Nagar. Ex.B.6 is brochure and Ex.B.7 is the layout plan of Dwarakamai Nagar.
Ex.B.8 is the layout plan of Baba Nagar floated by opposite party No.4. Opposite parties 1 to 3 have agreed to sell 150 square yards of plot, to each of the complainants on payment of Rs.33,800/- in various instalments. In fact they have paid some of the instalments evidenced under Exs.A.1 to A.3. The fact is that opposite party No.3 has received the entire consideration evidenced under Ex.B.9 receipt.
9. The case of the complainants is that when they approached opposite parties 1 to 3, who were partners to execute the sale deeds as agreed, they have informed that they have transferred their interest in the firm in favour of opposite party No.4, who in turn renamed the venture under the name and style Baba Nagar, and as such , he would execute registered sale deeds in their favour.
10. The fact that opposite party No.4 is also a partner in the firm consisting of opposite parties 1 to 3 is not evidenced by any document. There is no evidence to show that opposite parties have transferred the interest in favour of opposite party No.4. There is no correspondence between opposite parties 1 to 3 and opposite party No.4 to show that opposite party No.4 has acted as a partner along with opposite parties 1 to 3. When the allegation that it was a partnership firm and if really opposite party No.4 was also a partner, the complainants could have filed the certified copy obtained from the Registrar of Firms to show that opposite party No.4 acted as a partner. We may state herein that no affidavit of any of the partners was filed to show that opposite party No.4 had acted as partner or that they have transferred their interest in favour of opposite party No.4.
11. Opposite parties 1 to 3 in order to prove that they have transferred their interest relied on Ex.B.4, the agreement dated 19.09.2000 to show that they have transferred their interest in favour of opposite party No.4. Opposite party No.4 not only in his counter but also in his affidavit denied the execution categorically. He insisted for production of originals of those documents in order to send them to an hand writing expert for comparison of the signatures. The complainants and opposite parties 1 to 3 for the reasons best known to them did not file the original of Ex.B.4 to rebut the contention of opposite party No.4 in this regard.
12. In fact in the affidavit evidence of opposite party No.3 the fact that the signatures on Ex.B.4 pertain to the opposite party No.4 was not even mentioned. He did not traverse any of these facts alleged by opposite party No.4 in this regard.
They relied Ex.B.11, a Xerox copy of receipt said to have been issued by opposite party No.4 in favour of members of opposite parties 2 and 3. When opposite party No.4 disputes the genuineness, the original was not filed nor the affidavit of the member to show that Ex.B.11 was given.
13. The complainants have issued registered notices to opposite parties 1 to 3 directing them to execute the registered sale deeds. Importantly, no registered notice was issued to opposite party No.4 directing him to execute the registered sale deeds in their favour.
No reason whatsoever. was assigned by the complainants in their affidavits. More so when opposite party No.3 has given a reply in Ex.A.6 mentioning that they have transferred their title in favour of opposite party No.4, even then the complainants did not issue any notice to opposite party No.4 referring the notice issued under Ex.A.6. When there is absolutely no evidence, whatsoever that opposite party No.4 has anything to do with the transactions, the District Forum was right in observing that no case was made over against opposite party No.4 nor the opposite party No.4 could be directed to execute the sale deeds in their favour. Evidently, opposite parties 5 and 6 had parted their title in favour of opposite parties 1 to 3 under registered sale deeds. It is not known as to why opposite parties 5 and 6 were also impleaded in the complaints. In view of the disputes between opposite parties 1 to 3 and opposite party No.4, the question of directing opposite party No.4 to execute the registered sale deeds will not arise. Evidently, opposite parties 1 to 3 are the owners by virtue of registered sale deeds obtained in their favour from opposite parties 5 and 6. In view of the above discussions, the District Forum has directed opposite parties 1 to 3 to repay the amounts received by them under the agreements to the complainants. We do not see any mis-appreciation of facts or law in this regard. We do not see any merits in these appeals.
14. In the result, these appeals are dismissed.
However, without costs.
PRESIDENT LADY MEMBER MALE MEMBER Dt-01.08.2008.
Vvr.