State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
A.Jaiganesh ,Madurai. vs M.Mani,Madurai. & Another. on 8 July, 2022
1
IN THE CIRCUIT BENCH OF THE TAMILNADU STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL COMMISSION, MADURAI.
Present: THIRU.N. RAJASEKAR, PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER
R.P.No.24/2017
(Against the order in C.M.P.No.183/2016 in C.C.No.123/2014, dated 27.10.2017 on the file
of the District Forum, Madurai.)
FRIDAY, THE 08th DAY OF JULY 2022
A.Jaiganesh,
S/o Alagarsamy,
No.362-c, Jeya Illam,
Anandhan Nagar,
G.S.T.Road Thanakankulam,
Madurai-6. Revision Petitioner/Petitioner/3rd Opp.Party
-Vs-
1. M.Mani,
S/o Muthaiah,
156, Thiyagarajar Colony,
Pasumalai,
Madurai-6. 1st Respondent/1st Respondent/Complainant
2. The Secretary,
A 2248, Pandian Nagar,
Co-operative Building
Society Limited,
II, Harvey Nagar 1st Street,
Arasaradi, Madurai - 625 016. 2nd Respondent/2nd Respondent/1st Opp.Party
Counsel for Revision Petitioner/Petitioner/ : Mr.J.Devasenan, Advocate.
Opposite Party-3
Counsel for Respondent-1/Respondent-1/ : Mr.R.Ganesan, Advocate.
Complainant
Counsel for Respondent-2/Respondent-2/ : Mr.G.Murugan, Advocate.
Opposite Party-1
This revision petition coming before me for final hearing on 08.10.2021 and
on perusing the material records, this Commission made the following:-
ORDER
THIRU.N. RAJASEKAR, PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER.
2
1. The Revision petition has been filed by the 3rd opposite party challenging it the order passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Madurai made in C.M.P.No.183/2016 in C.C.No.123/2014, dated 27.10.2017.
2. The Revision petitioner herein is the petitioner/2nd opposite party and 1st respondent/complainant, 2nd respondent/1st opposite party herein are the complainant & 1st opposite party.
3. For the sake of convenience and brevity, the parties are referred to here as they stood arrayed in the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Madurai.
4. The averments of the petitioner in brief is as follows: The petitioner is the 3rd opposite party in this complaint petition and he wants to implead as a the party in the main complaint. The 1st respondent/complainant has filed the main complaint against the 2nd respondent/1st opposite party claiming the original document entrusted with the 2nd opposite party society. This petitioner has purchased the schedule property from the 1st respondent/complainant and therefore the petitioner alone is entitled to receive the original document from the 2nd respondent society and the property mentioned in the above said document is in the possession of the petitioner/3rd party. The petitioner is a bonafide purchaser of the property as per the sale deed dated 04.03.2013. The 1st respondent/ complainant has mentioned in the complaint that the parental sale deed was with the 2nd respondent society.
Subsequently the petitioner came to know that the 1st respondent/ complainant and then Secretary of the 2nd respondent society colluded together and misappropriated the funds of the 2nd opposite party society and for that the criminal complaint had been filed before Thirunagar Police Station, and the police has 3 registered a case against the 1st respondent/complainant and then secretary of the 2nd opposite party.
The petitioner/3rd party also filed a Writ of Mandamus before the Hon'ble Madurai Bench of Madras High Court in order to direct the 2nd respondent to handover the parental sale deed and mortgage dead and the same is pending before the Hon'ble High Court. Under the above circumstances it is necessary that this petitioner/3rd party shall be impleaded as party in the main complaint. Unless the petition is allowed, the petitioner will be put to irreparable loss.
5. Counter statement filed by the 1st respondent/complainant is as follows: The 1st respondent/complainant has executed the sale deed in favour of the petitioner/3rd party on 04.03.2013 but the petitioner/3rd party failed to pay the full consideration as agreed and cheated the 1st respondent/complainant and therefore the 1st respondent/complainant has filed a civil case before the Additional Sub-Court No.2, Madurai (Camp Court,Thirumangalam) seeking declaration that the sale deed was void and the said civil case is pending before the said court.
The petitioner/3rd party has got the sale deed from the 1st respondent/ complainant cheating the 1st respondent/complainant with connivance of the then Secretary of 2nd respondent. The complainant availed mortgage loan on 28.02.2013 by pledging the said document. Subsequently the complainant has paid the mortgage loan and the co-operative society had given him a discharge certificate. The complainant alone entitled to get the said document from the 2nd respondent society. The petitioner/3rd party is not entitled to get the document and also he is not at all necessary party to the consumer complaint.
4
The 1st respondent/complainant has filed a Wirt petition before the Hon'ble Madras High Court Madurai Bench to pass the order directing the 2nd respondent to return the document and the Hon'ble Madras High Court Madurai Bench on 24.09.2014 allowed the writ petition and directed the society to hand over the original document within 8 weeks. The petitioner/3rd party is a stranger to the consumer complaint and he is unnecessary party to the complaint and the petition may be dismissed.
6. Counter statement filed by the 2nd respondent/1st opposite party is as follows: The petition mentioned schedule property had been mortgaged in the 2nd respondent society by the 1st respondent/complainant and he borrowed a mortgage loan. The 1st respondent has not paid any amount to the society. The 1st respondent colluded with the then secretary of the society created false receipt as if the 1st respondent / complainant has paid the loan amount. The Regional District Registrar Co operative Society ordered enquiry under Section 81 of Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act, regarding the said bogus transaction and enquiry is still pending. The 1st respondent/complainant sold out the schedule property to the petitioner without the knowledge of the 2nd opposite party society. Disciplinary proceedings and other proceedings had been pending against the then Secretary Mr.Moovendran. The petitioner/3rd party is not at all bonafide person and he filed this petition with ulterior motive and the petition is liable to be dismissed.
7. After considering petition affidavit and the counter statement the learned District Forum passed an order of dismissal of the application on the ground that the Consumer Forum cannot decided the right of revision petitioner with regard to the disputed property. Only the Civil Court can decide the right of the parties with regard 5 to the property mentioned in the alleged sale deed. Therefore, the petitioner/3rd party has not at all necessary party to the consumer complaint.
8. Being aggrieved against that order petitioner/3rd party approached this Commission with revision petition by stating that he purchased the property for valuable consideration of Rs.5,62,680/-. The petitioner came to know that both respondents colluded together and misappropriated the funds of society a criminal complaint was lodged before Thirunagar police station. The case has been registered against the first respondent/complainant and the Secretary of the society before Thirunagar police station. The petitioner also filed writ of Mandamus before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court in W.P.No.17087/2015 is also pending. The Deputy Registrar of housing societies have made an attachment order against the property under Section 167 of Tamilnadu Co-operative Society Act 1983 and under Rule 140 of the Tamilnadu Co-operative Societies Rules 1988. He has also preferred the Appeal under Section 152 (2) of the before the Principal Sessions Judge is also pending the Civil suit filed by the 1st respondent/complainant before the Subordinate Judge Court, Tirumangalam O.S.No.436/2016 (New Suit No.825/2017) for cancellation of the sale deed executed in favour of this Revision petitioner and suit was dismissed on 14.09.2017 and the plaint is rejected under Order 7 Rule 11(b) C.P.C. Now, the petitioner alone is entitled to receive the parental documents from the 2nd respondent.
9. Point for consideration:
6
Whether the order passed by the learned District Forum Tiruchirappalli made in C.M.P.No.183/2016 in C.C.No.123/2014, dated 27.10.2017 is sustainable under law or not?
10. Point: The petitioner/3rd opposite party purchased the property from the first respondent during pendency of mortgage loan borrowed by his vendor from the second respondent. Now, it was alleged that the petitioner after purchasing the property came to know that the collusions of his vendor and the Secretary of the Co-operative Society and misappropriated the funds of the society the criminal case was also registered against them. The petitioner/3rd party filed the writ petition before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court for the relief of directing to return the parental original title deeds to him. The Civil suit filed by the vendor of the petitioner is also said to be rejected under Order 7 Rule 11(b) C.P.C. The petitioner raised several complexed questions which are to be decided only before Civil Court. He is not a party to the contract between the first and second respondent. Therefore he could not claim as a consumer under Consumer Protection Act.
11. The learned District Forum also rightly answered for those questions there is no consumer disputes between the petitioner and the second respondent society. The petitioner has to seek remedy before the Civil Court if at all having any right over the property mentioned in the sale deed. Therefore, the order passed by the learned District Forum is sustainable under law and answered accordingly for the point for consideration.
7
12. In the result, the Revision Petition is dismissed by confirming order of the learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Madurai made in C.M.P.No.183/2016 in C.C.No.123/2014 dated 27.10.2017.
Dictated to the Steno-typist transcribed and typed by her corrected and pronounced by me on this the 08th day of July 2022.
Sd/-xxxxxx N. RAJASEKAR, PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER.