State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Ch.Satyanarayan Reddy,S/O.Ram Reddy ... vs 1.M/S.Namishree Infrastructure And ... on 6 April, 2017
Cause Title/Judgement-Entry STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM Telangana Complaint Case No. CC/2012/76 1. CH.Satyanarayan Reddy,S/o.Ram Reddy age 38,Indian,NRI,Occ.Softwara Engineer,R/o.H.No.8-133,Sankaramma Colony,Near Ring Road, Jillegudda,RR Dist. Presently residing at H.No.13508,Ryan Mattnew Dr.Austin Texas-7827,USA,Rep by his father-in-law&GPA Holder Vanga Harischandra Reddy,S/o.Late V.Anantha Reddy,aged about 60 years,Indian,Occ.Business,R/o.H.No.8-133,Sankaramma Colony,Near Ring Road,R.R.Dist ...........Complainant(s) Versus 1. 1.M/s.Namishree infrastructure and Projects Pvt. Ltd., Office at Paras Chanmbers,Room No.314,3-5-890,Himayatnagar, Hyderabad,Reo vt uts Managing Director,Motulal,jain S/o.Mangilal Jain 2. IDBI Bank Ltd., Retail Assets Centre,3rd Floor,P.B.No.370,Chapel Road,Abids,Hyderabad - 500 001. ............Opp.Party(s) BEFORE: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B. N. RAO NALLA PRESIDENT HON'BLE MR. Sri. PATIL VITHAL RAO JUDICIAL MEMBER For the Complainant: For the Opp. Party: Dated : 06 Apr 2017 Final Order / Judgement BEFORE THE TELANGANA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION: AT HYDERABAD. CC 76 of 2012 Between: Ch.Satyanarayan Reddy S/o Ram Reddy Aged about 38 years, Indian, NRI, Occ: Software Engg. R/o H.No.8-133, Sankaramma Colony, Near Ring Road Jillelguda, R.R.Dist.-500047 Presently R/o H.No.13508, Ryan Mathew Dr.Austin, Texas-7827, USA, rep. by his Father-in-law & GPA Holder Vanga Harishcandra Reddy S/o late V.Anantha Reddy, Aged about 60 years, Indian Occ: Business, R/o H.No.8-133, Sankaramma Colony Near Ring Road, Jillelguda, R.R.Dist.500047 *** Complainant A N D M/s Namishree Infrastructure & Projects Pvt Ltd., Off: Paras Chambers, Room No.314, 3-5-890, Himayatnagar, Hyderabad Rep. by its Managing Director Motilal Jain S/o Mangilal Jain IDBI Bank Ltd., Retail Assets Centre, 3rd Floor P.B.No.370, Chapel Road ABids, Hyderabad-500001 *** Opposite Parties Counsel for the complainant: M/s V.Gourisankara Rao Counsel for the Opposite party No.1 M/s P.Parameswara Rao Counsel for the Opposite party No.2 M/s K.P.Saradhi QUORUM : HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B.N.RAO, PRESIDENT & SRI PATIL VITHAL RAO, MEMBER
THURSDAY THE SIXTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND SEVENTEEN Oral Order : (per Hon'ble Sri Justice B.N.Rao Nalla, Hon'ble President) *** This is a complaint filed by the complainant to direct the opposite party no.1 to refund Rs.37,00,000/- with interest @ 18% per annum from the respective dates of amounts to the opposite party no.2 bank; to pay compensation of rS.2,00,000/- to the complainant; to direct the opposite party no.2 not to demand the complainant for the repayment of loan amount till the opposite party no.1 refunds the amounts and pay costs of Rs.25,000/-.
2. The brief facts as set out in the complaint are that the opposite party no.1 is a builder engaged in the housing construction activity. They are real estate agents and builders. The opposite party no.1 represented that they were developing a gated community by constructing duplex houses and developing the said layout with all amenities with proper approvals from the competent authorities under the name and style "Nakshtra" situated at Kothapet Village, Saroornagar Mandal RR Dist. Being induced by the representations made by the opposite party no.1 the complainant intended to purchase independent duplex house. Opposite party no.1 entered into agreement of sale and construction dated 03.01.2008 in favour of the complainant offering to sell Plot No.56 admeasuring 200 sq.yds with the construction of a duplex house in the said plot admeasuring 2,141 sft for a total consideration of Rs.42,50,000/-. Complainant paid Rs.2,00,000/- towards first instalment. The balance amount is to be paid as per the progress of the construction of the house. As per clause 2 of the agreement, the opposite party no.1 has to complete the construction and handover the possession of the same within a period of 18 months from the date of the receipt of the first instalment. The complainant availed loan of Rs.37,00,000/- from the opposite party no.2 repayable with interest @ 10.5% p.a. in 180 EMIs of Rs.40,900/- p.m.
3. The complainant submitted that on 18.02.2008 the opposite party no.2 released Rs.25,00,000/- and on 22.02.2008 released another sum of Rs.10,00,000/- to the opposite epartyno.1. Thus the complainant paid Rs.37,00,000/- to the opposite party no.1 towards sale consideration. While so, on 18.02.2008 the opposite partyno.1 in his capacity as the Agreement of Sale cum GPA Holder of the landlord executed a Sale Deed in favour of the complainant conveying the title in plot No.56 mentioning the sale consideration as Rs.3,00,000/-. Though the complainant paid substantial sale consideration, the opposite partyno.1 failed to complete the construction of the house. The opposite party no.1 left the construction work in semi-finished condition. There is abnormal delay on the part of the opposite party no.1 in completing the project and constructing the house. The opposite party no.1 not even constructed the compound wall of the gated community completely, did not provide the drinking water and drainage facilities in the venture. A portion of the land was in dispute and the neighbouring landlords filed a civil suit against the opposite party no.1 for injunction and the same is pending. The complainant requested several times by phone and personal visits but there was no proper response from the opposite party no.1. By 03.12.2009 the complainant paid Rs.8,58,672/- towards repayment of the loan to the opposite party no.2. The opposite party no.2 has been demanding the complainant to pay the balance amount by issuing notices dated 01.12.2009, 18.06.2010 and 01.09.2010 and also issued publication in newspapers for the auction of the semi-finished house. However, the auction could not be taken for one reason or other.
4. The complainant and his wife jointly got issued legal notice dated 30.12.2010 calling upon the opposite party no.1 to refund the amount with interest @ 18% per annum from the respective dates of payment and the Bank not to insist/pressurize the complainant for the repayment of the loan amount till the amount is refunded by the opposite party no.1. The opposite party no.1 gave reply dated 12.01.2011 with false allegations. The opposite party no.2 got issued a legal notice to the complainant and his wife calling upon them to pay overdue amount of Rs.11,65,326.13 within 15 days. The complainant gave reply dated 25.06.2011 stating that the Bank without looking into the progress has released the loan amount to the opposite party no.1 and that the house is not completed and requested the Bank not to pressurize the complainant for the repayment of loan amount till the amount is refunded by opposite partyno.1. Because of the default on the part of the opposite party no.1 in completing and handing over the possession of the house with all specifications within the schedule time, the complainant has been subjected to serious inconvenience, hardship and mental agony apart from irreparable financial loss. Hence, the complainant prayed this Commission to direct the opposite party no.1 to refund Rs.37,00,000/- with interest @ 18% per annum from the respective dates of amounts to the opposite party no.2 Bank subject to the re-conveyance of the house to opposite party no.1; to pay compensation of Rs.2,00,000/-; to direct the opposite party no.2 not to demand the complainant for the repayment of loan amount till opposite party no.1 refund the amount and pay costs of Rs.25,000/-
5. The opposite party no.1 filed its written version admitting that on 03.01.2008 he has entered into an agreement of sale and construction offering to sell Plot No.56 admeasuring 200 sq.yds with the construction of the duplex house in the said plot admeasuring 2141 sft for a total sale consideration of Rs.42,50,000/-. Out of the total sale consideration the complainant paid an advance amount of Rs.2,00,000/- at the time of execution of the agreement. It is denied that the balance payment of Rs.40,50,000/- is to be paid as per the progress of the construction. In the construction agreement it is very clearly mentioned the mode of payments as mentioned hereunder:
a) Rs.18,00,000/- at the time of registration of property i.e., on or before 15.02.2008 b) Rs.5,00,000/- on or before 15.05.2008 c) Rs.5,00,000/- on or before 15.08.2008 d) Rs.5,00,000/- on or before 15.11.2008 e) Rs.5,00,000/- on or before 15.02.2009 f) Rs.2,00,000/- on or before15.05.2009 g) Rs.50,000/- on completion of all the works on handing over the possession of the schedule property to the vendee
6. The opposite party no.1 also admitted that the construction of the house has to be completed and to be handed over to the purchaser within a period of 18 months from the date of receipt of the first instalment if all the instalments are paid on due date. The complainant out of the earnest money of Rs.2,00,000/- paid by the complainant, an amount of Rs.40,573/- was paid to opposite party no.2 towards processing fees by way of cheque dated 11.02.2008 and a sum of Rs.30,000/- towards registration charges on personal request of the complainant and his GPA holder Mr.Harischandra Reddy. These amounts are to be paid by the complainant with interest. The opposite party no.2 on the request of the complainant has released Rs.25,00,000/- on 22.02.2008 and Rs.10,00,000/- on 22.10.2008 from the Housing Loan Account of the complainant to the opposite party no.1 after getting a report of the progress and status of the construction from their engineering staff/technical staff.
7. The opposite party no.1 submitted that the complainant has failed to pay the money as per the terms and conditions of agreement of sale and construction and specifically as per para No.1 of the agreement. However, opposite partyno.1 has completed the construction of the house with all the agreed fittings in all respects with lock and key. While the matter stood thus, on 24.03.2010, the Assistant General Manager, Collections IDBI sent a message to the complainant that they were going to take possession of the house and the opposite party no.1 requested the banker to extend the time for payment by 3 months to update the account of the complainant. The opposite party no.1 pleaded that it had completed all the works and about 75 families are residing in the colony and about 100 houses have been handed over to the respective purchasers. The opposite party no.1 provided all the facilities like swimming pool, garden, club house, children's play area, street lights, cement concrete roads, footpaths, street gardens, imposing entrance gate, 2 line water supply system for bore and municipal water, fully equipped gym, Table tennis, pool table, provision for library, projector room, office room, waiting area, kitchen, toilets, bathrooms, underground drainage system, sewerage treatment plant, underground cabling system, transformer, generator, total electrical panel boards, meter boards, water pumping pneumatic water pressure boosting system are in place since October 2009 onwards. As the complainant failed to update his account the opposite party no.2 has taken possession of the completed house. The payment received against the sale of property has been invested for construction of the house and the title of the property has been transferred to the complainant the question of refund of the amount does not arise.
8. The opposite party no.1 further submitted that they have completed the construction of house in all respects well within the time frame of 18 months from the date of receipt of first instalment and in fact the complainant and his GPA holder planned to celebrate the birthday of their child in the new house which was ready for house warming. The complainant has taken for ride the opposite party no.2 and opposite party no.1 without having sufficient funds to purchase the house ventured into the deals knowing very well that the economy of USA is at the verge of collapse. The complainant had mailed a message dated "31.03.2010 to the opposite party no.2 to adjust their dues by auctioning the house. In fact opposite party no.1 made a humble suggestion that instead of auctioning of the house by the opposite party no.2 they could arrange some money and request the bank to grant some more time and in the mean while he could make it convenient to come down to Hyderabad and sell the property so that the bank will not blacklist them for the simple reason they became defaulters".
9. In another email message to the opposite party no.2 which reads as follows:
" I never mind to pay the loan amount bu here in USA, we are having very bad financial situation because of huge loss in house hold income, we both me and my wife lost the jobs and we are on unemployment benefits from the US Government when we are under this benefit programme nobody is supposed to put pressure/harass for the loan payments now we are United State Citizens and we can take any of your legal issues to US courts of law and judgements".
10. This message is very clear that the complainant was not having money even to pay the monthly instalments and this fact clearly proves that the fault for the performance of the contract is with the complainant.
11. The opposite party no.1 in its reply categorically stated that it is mandatory to pay instalments as stipulated in clause 1 in the agreement of sale and construction that as per clause 3 opposite party no.1 has the right to cancel the agreement in case the balance sale consideration is not paid as per schedule. As per clause 4 the complainant has the right to seek specific performance of the agreement had the complainant fulfilled the terms of agreement of sale and nothing prevented them for taking such action. The complainant is still due of an amount of Rs.5,50,000/- plus charges towards amenities, service tax, registration, VAT, Corpus Fund, processing fees paid to opposite party no.2 and registration charges etc. In view of non-payment of EMIs regularly, the opposite partyno.2 refused to further release the loan amount to opposite party no.1 and consequently the possession of the house was taken over by opposite party no.2 exercising their rights under SARFAESI Act. It is further pleaded by the opposite party no.1 that the complainant has to pay a sum of Rs.9,00,000/- to the opposite party no.1. The title owned by the complainant over the property was mortgage to the opposite party no.2 and the said debt is undischarged. The opposite party no.1 has to receive the balance amounts of Rs.9 lakhs from the complainant. There is no privity of contract between the three parties. The opposite party no.1 never obtained the loan from opposite party no.2. Therefore, the opposite party no.1 prayed to dismiss the complaint with exemplary costs.
12. The opposite party no.2 also filed its version while denying the allegations made in the complaint contended that as the complainant approached the opposite party no.2 for sanction of loan and this opposite party after seeing the source of income and their solvency and other documents sanctioned an amount of Rs.37,00,000/- against mortgage of property. The opposite party no.1 executed sale deed in favour of the complainant and the same is mortgaged with the opposite party no.2. Due to non payment of monthly instalments, the complainant loan account became NPA and the opposite epartyno.2 initiated proceedings under SARFAESI Act against the secured assets and taken over the physical possession of the said property through Advocate Commissioner. The Bank has no power to waive penal charges and compounding interest. The complainant to avoid liability/payment of instalments or to delay the same which are not permissible under law as such the opposite party no.2 prayed to dismiss the complaint with exemplary costs.
13. On behalf of the complainant, the GPA, the father in law of the complainant has filed his evidence affidavit and additional evidence affidavit and got Exs.A1 to A25 marked. On behalf of the opposite party no.1, Sri Motilal Jain, the Managing Director of the opposite party no.1 filed his evidence affidavit and additional affidavit and got Exs.B1 to B12 marked.
14. The following issues are framed for proper adjudication of the instant case.
Is the complaint of the complainant is maintainable in view of initiating the proceedings by the opposite party no.2 under the SARFAESI Act?
Are the opposite parties deficient in service as claimed by the complainant?
Is the complainant is entitled to the reliefs, as prayed for?
15. Points no.1 to 3 :
The admitted facts are that the opposite party no.1 on 03.01.2008 has entered into an agreement of sale and construction offering to sell Plot No.56 admeasuring 200 sq.yds with the construction of the duplex house in the said plot admeasuring 2141 sft for a total sale consideration of Rs.42,50,000/-. Out of the total sale consideration the complainant paid an advance amount of Rs.2,00,000/- at the time of execution of the agreement. It is also admitted fact that the opposite party no.2 released an amount of Rs.35,00,000/- towards loan amount to the opposite party no.1. On the other hand the case of the opposite party no.1 is that out of the earnest money of Rs.2,00,000/- paid by the complainant an amount of Rs.40,573/- was paid to opposite party no.2 towards processing fees and a sum of Rs.30,000/- towards registration charges on personal request of the complainant. The opposite party no.2 released the loan amount of Rs.35,00,000/- after getting a report of the progress and status of the construction. The opposite partyno.1 stated that it has completed the construction of the house with all the agreed fittings in all respects with lock and key. The opposite party no.1 provided all the facilities in the said venture. In view of non-payment of EMIs regularly, the opposite partyno.2 refused to further release of the loan amount to opposite party no.1 and consequently the possession of the house was taken over by opposite party no.2 exercising their rights under SARFAESI Act. It is further pleaded by the opposite party no.1 that the complainant has to pay a sum of Rs.9,00,000/- to the opposite party no.1.
16. The opposite party no.2 submitted that due to non payment of monthly instalments, the complainant loan account became NPA and the opposite party no.2 initiated proceedings under SARFAESI Act against the secured assets and taken over the physical possession of the said property through Advocate Commissioner.
17. The Consumer Protection Act is a general enactment and the SARFAESI Act is a special enactment. The SARFAESI Act will have an overriding effect. Section 34 of the SARFAESI Act reads as under :-
"34. Civil Court not to have jurisdiction No civil court shall have jurisdiction to entertain any suit or proceeding in respect of any matter which a Debts Recovery Tribunal or the Appellate Tribunal is empowered by or under this Act to determine and no injunction shall be granted by any court or other authority in respect of any action taken or to be taken in pursuance of any power conferred by or under this Act or under the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993."
18. The proceedings under the CP Act are of summary in nature and remedial in character which is to be decided in time frame bound. In the case where complicated questions of law and facts are involved, this Commission and Consumer Fora are empowered to direct the parties to avail appropriate remedy before the Civil Court or any other Court.
19. In this case, the complainant alleged that the opposite party no.2, the Bank, without observing the progress of the work had released the loan amount to the opposite party no.1 and the opposite party no.1 though required amount was received failed to complete the construction of the house. On the other hand the opposite party no.1 in its additional affidavit have stated that in view of non-payment of EMIs regularly by the complainant, the Bank had exercised its right under the SARFAESI Act and issued notice to the complainant and took possession of the building and sold it in the public auction to one Akilesh Choudary for Rs.32,75,000/- and the sale consideration was adjusted to the loan account of the complainant. This was evidenced under Ex.A25. The SARFAESI Act is a complete code in itself. The deficiency as defined in the CP Act is inclusive and means any fault, imperfection, shortcoming or inadequacy in the quality, nature and manner of performance which is required to be maintained by or under any law for the time being in force or has been undertaken to be performed by a person in pursuance of a contract or otherwise in relation to any service.
20. The performance thus being undertaken was not by the opposite party no.2-Bank, but complainant himself to pay the equated monthly installment at the agreed rate of interest. Making repayment from the year of loan does not absolve the liability of the complainant to be regular in payment of installments. Not only that the ground taken is that due to bad financial position of the complainant he could not pay the instalments. But the fact remains that equated monthly installments were not paid.
21. Ex.B1 is the copy of sale deed dated 18.02.2008 executed in favour of the complainant by the opposite party no.1 conveyed title in respect of plot no.56. Clause 2 of the Sale deed discloses that the vendor company has retained the vacant and physical possession of the schedule property in its possession for construction of Duplex House thereon. Ex.B2 is the copy of agreement of sale and construction dated 3.1.2008 executed in favour of the complainant wherein it was mentioned schedule of payment to be made by the complainant. Clause 2 of the agreement shows that the opposite party no.1 had undertaken to complete construction and handover the duplex house within a period 18 months from the date of receipt of 1st instalment. Clause 3 of the agreement discloses that the complainant shall pay regularly the instalments amount within the stipulated period specified in the agreement. Ex.B6 is the copy of Completion Certificate issued by the Office of the Gram Panchayat, Kothapet, Saroor Nagar Mandal Ranga Reddy District dated 7.5.2010 wherein it is certified that construction of House No.3-B/92 has been completed as per the approved plan. Total 9 Completion Certificates were filed by the opposite party no.1 showing that they have completed the duplex houses as the other purchasers paid the amounts as per schedule. Ex.B7 is the copy of Sale Certificate issued in favour of Akhilesh Chowdhary to show that he purchased the plot no.56 in an auction conducted by the opposite party no.2 for Rs.32,75,000/-. Ex.B11 is the copy of email dated 28.03.2010 wherein the complainant stated as follows:
" I never mind to pay the loan amount but here in USA, we are having very bad financial situation because of huge loss in house hold income, we both me and my wife lost the jobs and we are on unemployment benefits from the US Government when we are under this benefit programme nobody is supposed to put pressure/harass for the loan payments now we are United State Citizens and we can take any of your legal issues to US courts of law and judgements".
22. Ex.B12 is also a copy of the email dated 31.03.2010 wherein the opposite party no.1 stated that as per the email the complainant had asked the bank and the oppose party no.1 to adjust the dues on house by auctioning the house and this is the last resort that has to be taken as of now the position stands that the bank will blacklist the complainant if the loan becomes defaulted and advised the complainant to talk to the bank and arrange any amount so that they can buy sometime meanwhile the opposite partyno.1 try to arrange and sell the house. Another option is that if the complainant can come down and transfer the property himself so that the bank does not have to auction it they can still get it cleared as non defaultee loan. From the above documents and emails prove that the complainant due to his bad financial position in US as he and his wife lost jobs they were not in a position to pay the balance dues to the opposite party no.1 and the installment amounts to the opposite party no.2. Though the property was sold in public auction and the sale proceeds were adjusted to the complainant's loan account, still the complainant was due a sum of Rs.5,50,000/- towards the cost of the house and Rs.4,50,000/- towards amenities etc., which was not denied by the complainant.
23. The complainant in his additional affidavit stated that during the pendency of the complaint, without the knowledge, the opposite party no.2 Bank sold the plot to a third party Akhilesh Chowdhury vide certificate of sale dated 21.02.2013 evidenced under ex.A24 and 25. Because of delay on the part of the builder in completing the construction within time and due to auction of the house the complainant sustained heavy loss. The margin money paid to the builder as well as the amount repaid towards loan is also lost and still he fell in dues to the Bank due to sale of the house for a lesser price.
24. From the documents filed before this Commission and the contentions made by opposite partyno.1 and the opposite party no.2 in the written versions, it is very much clear that the proceedings had already been initiated in respect of the transaction of the loan in dispute under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act. It was held by the Hon'ble National Commission in 2013(1) CLT 531 (Shiv Shankar Lal Gupta v. Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. & others) that where case is pending against the complainant under the SARFAESI Act, the law puts a crimp in invoking the jurisdiction of Consumer Commission. While interpreting Section 34 of that Act, which bars the jurisdiction of the Civil Court to entertain any suit or proceeding in respect of any matter, which a Debt Recovery Tribunal or the Appellant Tribunal is empowered by the Act to determine, it was held that the Civil Court mentioned in that Section also includes the Tribunals and the Commissions dealing with the civil matters
25. The proceeding under the CP Act meant for protecting the interest of bonafide consumers. Deficiency on the part of opposite parties should be proved on facts. The burden of proof is on the complainant. However, once the initial burden is discharged, onus may shift to the opposite parties heavily to disprove the fact. In any case, on the case in hand, no such initial burden is discharged. It is unfortunate that the complainant and his wife suffered financial loss in the same period when the plots were purchased and loan was obtained from the opposite party no.2-Bank. But for that purpose, opposite parties cannot be blamed. Even after the opportunity was given apparently at least for once by postponing the scheduled auction, it was necessary for the complainant to make certain arrangement for repayment to clear dues. But that is not the case made out by the complainant. . This Commission has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint once the recovery proceedings have been started by the Bank under the SARFAESI Act. Even on merits also the complainant has no case because he became defaulter by not paying the amounts as per schedule and also the opposite party no.1 has completed the construction of subject duplex house. If the opposite partyno.1 did not complete the construction of house of the complainant, the third party i.e., Akhilesh Chowdary could not have purchased the said house in an auction conducted by the opposite party no.2. Therefore, on all these grounds, we are of the view that the complainant failed to prove deficiency in service as well.
In the result both the complaint is dismissed. The parties shall bear their own costs.
PRESIDENT MEMBER Dated: 06.04.2017 Appendix of Evidence Witnesses Examined NIL Exhibits Marked For complainant Ex.A1 Copy of Sale Deed dated 18.02.2008 in favour of the complainant Ex.A2 Copy of Notice dated 01.12.2009 issued by IDBI Bank Ex.A3 Copy of Notice Prior to Sale dated 18.06.2010 of IDBI Bank Ex.A4 Copy of letter of IDBI Bank dated 17.07.2009 to the complainant Ex.A5 Copy of letter of IDBI Bank dated 19.03.2008 to the complainant Ex.A6 Copy of Certificate issued by IDBI Bank dated 13.03.2008 Ex.A7 Copy of Revised Sanction Letter dated 30.01.2008 of IDBI Bank Ex.A8 Copy of pay order dated 18.02.2008 for Rs.25 lakhs Ex.A9 Copy of Building Plan Ex.A10 O/c of legal notice dated 30.12.2010 got issued by complainant to Ops Ex.A11 Reply notice of Op no.1 to the complainant Ex.A12 Legal notice dated 01.06.2011 of the Op2 to the complainants Ex.A13 O/c of legal notice dated 25.06.2011 got issued by complainant to Ops Ex.A14 Layout Plan Ex.A15 Brochure Ex.A16 Copy of Agreement of Sale Cum General Power of Attorney dated 18.06.2007 Ex.A17 Copy of Agreement of Sale Cum General Power of Attorney dated 18.06.2007 Ex.A18 Copy of Agreement of Sale Cum General Power of Attorney dated 18.06.2007 Ex.A19 Copy of Agreement of Sale Cum General Power of Attorney dated 18.06.2007 Ex.A20 Copy of Decree in O.S.No.2892 of 2006 before III Addl.Junion Civil Judge , R.R.Dist. Ex.A21 Copy of Judgement in O.S.No.2892 of 2006 before III Addl.Junion Civil Judge , R.R.Dist. Ex.A22 Photos Ex.A23 Copy of Certificate of Sale dated 21.02.2013 For opposite parties Ex.B1 Copy of Sale Deed dated 18.02.2008 in favour of the complainant Ex.B2 Copy of Agreement of Sale dated 03.01.2008 Ex.B3 Copy of email dated 4.08.2008 Ex.B4 Copy of email dated 05.09.2008 Ex.B5 Copy of Payment of service line charges dated 16.09.2008 Ex.B6 Copy of Sample completion certificates Ex.B7 Copy registered sale certificate Ex.B8 Copy of legal notice dated 30.12.2010 of complainants Ex.B9 Copy of reply notice of the opposite party no.1 dt.12.01.2011 Ex.B10 Copy of loan recall notice dated 13.09.2009 Ex.B11 Copy of email dated 28.03.2008 Ex.B12 Copy of email dated 31.03.2010 PRESIDENT MEMBER Dated: 06.04.2017 [HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B. N. RAO NALLA] PRESIDENT [HON'BLE MR. Sri. PATIL VITHAL RAO] JUDICIAL MEMBER