ASHWILNI A BORKAR Vs. RAIGAD NIKETAN CHS TD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Mr. S.V. Rajadhyax -Advocate for the appellant.

(2.) THIS appeal is directed as against the order passed by Additional District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Mumbai Suburban in consumer complaint No. 592/2007 decided on 6.12.2010. Admitted facts are to this effect.

(3.) INITIALLY plot Nos. 1516 and 1517 were belonging to the partnership firm of which respondent No. 6 Malati Jagdale and her husband were the partners. However, it appears that the husband of Malati Jagdale has expired and the said property is now with respondent No. 5 being the wife and partner of the said partnership firm. They are builder and developers. They have sold the above referred plots to the respondent No. 1 society in the year 1989 and accordingly Conveyance Deed has been executed. It appears that after execution of said Conveyance Deed, respondent No. 5 has again re -conveyed one of the plots namely plot No. 70 to the third party. Therefore, complainants being the members of the respondent No. 1 society made grievance to the society. However, respondent No. 1 society failed to take action for recovery of the possession of the said property and execute Conveyance Deed executed by respondent No. 5 and, therefore, complaint was lodged. Said complaint was dismissed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum on the ground that complaint does not involve consumer dispute. We also find that dispute between complainant/appellant and the respondent is not a consumer dispute. Finding recorded by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum is just and proper. No interference is called for. Appeal is hereby rejected.