G VIDYASAGAR Vs. P VENKATARAMANA REDDY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard both the counsel and perused the material available on record.

(2.) This C.R.P. is filed under Section 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act by the revision petitioner-defendant as against the judgment in S.C.No.25 of 1998 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Madanapalli decreeing the suit with proportionate costs for Rs.2,850/- with interest at 6% per annum from 8.11.1996 till the date of realization.

(3.) The respondent-plaintiff instituted a suit for recovery of Rs.3,933/- bring the principal and interest due towards refund of subscription fee of Rs.150/- per month for 19 months including interest thereon at 24% per annum from 9.11.1996.The case of the respondent-plaintiff is that the revision petitioner-defendant is the managing partner of Shirdisai Real Estates concern and he has been selling the house site plots in monthly instalments under the name and style of Besant Nagar Housing Scheme and as per the terms and conditions of the said scheme, each member will be allotted with a house site plot measuring 0.021/2 cents and each member has to pay an amount of Rs.150/- per month for 36 months and total consideration will be Rs.5,400/- and if any member intends to have a plot urgently, he can pay the entire instalment amount in lumpsum and can obtain a registered sale deed. The respondent-plaintiff, who is a member of the said scheme, paid 19 monthly instalments at the rate of Rs.150/- per instalment and he was given a pass book bearing No.154 and cash receipts were also issued. It was further pleaded that after 19th instalment, the respondent-plaintiff intended to obtain the registered sale deed after paying further instalments but the revision petitioner-defendant had been postponing the execution of registered sale deed on some lame excuse and on 9.10.1995 the respondent-plaintiff paid last instalment and since then the revision petitioner-defendant had been postponing the execution of the sale deed and though the respondent-plaintiff insisted atleast for return of the amount, the revision petitioner-defendant is evading to pay the same and consequently, a notice dated 11.4.1998 was issued and after receipt of notice, the revision petitioner-defendant had sent a requisition asking for copies of the documents and even after compliance, the revision petitioner-defendant had neither replied nor complied with the said demand. Hence, the suit.