N.SURENDER RAO Vs. T.SHARDHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Aggrieved by the order in C.C.No.821/2007 on the file of District Forum-III, Hyderabad, the opposite party No.1 preferred this appeal.

(2.) The brief facts as set out in the complaint are that the complainant entered into an agreement of sale dated 14-8-2003 with opposite party No.1 for purchase of flat No.203 in second floor admeasuring 1045 sft. for a total sale consideration of Rs.10,10,116/- and paid an amount of Rs.5,00,000/- (by demand drafts bearing Nos.293505 to 293509 for Rs.2,00,000/- and Rs.3,00,000/- by cash). The complainant submitted that opposite party No.1 agreed to receive the balance sale consideration after completion of the flat and at the time of registration. Thereafter opposite party No.1 completed major portion of the construction leaving only minor amenities and the complainant requested opposite party No.1 to register the sale deed in her favour in the month of July, 2005 where upon opposite party No.1 demanded a further sum of Rs.1,00,000/- to complete all other amenities and accordingly she paid a further sum of Rs.1,00,000/-. In July, 2006 she demanded opposite party No.1 to register sale deed in her favour but opposite party No.1 cited some disputes between him and 2nd opposite party and executed a extension and modification agreement dated 20-7-2006 agreeing to handover the flat in all respects within a period of 90 days. It is the case of the complainant that opposite party No.1 has been delaying the registration of the flat on one pretext or the other with a view to make illegal gain due to escalation of value of the property. It is her case that the entire construction was made with the help of money obtained from various purchasers including the complainant and that there was clear deficiency in service on his part in not registering the flat in her name. Hence the complaint for a direction to the opposite parties 1 and 2 to execute registered sale deed in her favour in respect of flat No.203, 2nd floor in premises No.6-1-132/77/A together with undivided share of land situated at Zamisthanpur, Padmaraonagar, Secunderabad or in the alternative refund Rs.6,00,000/- received towards advance under agreement of sale dated 14-8-2003 with interest at 18%, together with compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- and costs.

(3.) Opposite party No.1 filed counter contending that the complaint is not maintainable before the Forum either on merits or on facts and since the complaint attracts the provisions of Specific Relief Act, the complainant has to approach the Civil Court. He however admitted that he and opposite party No. 2 having entered into development agreement dated 22-7-2001 to develop the property for construction of a residential complex and to share the constructed area in accordance with the terms and conditions mentioned therein. That by virtue of the terms and conditions, he had entered into agreement of sale with prospective purchasers including the complainant and received certain amounts in advance. He admitted that he received a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- from the complainant initially. However, he submitted that the second opposite party refused to co-operative to execute registered sale deeds in favour of prospective purchasers and therefore he filed O.P.No.1062/2003 before the Hon'ble Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad U/s.9 of Arbitration and Reconciliation Act, 1996 against the second opposite party. An injunction order was passed on 05-9-2003 restraining the second opposite party from interfering with peaceful possession of the property and from alienating only disposal of Arbitration proceedings No.4/2003 pending before the Hon'ble High Court of A.P. Aggrieved by the order, first and second opposite parties filed separate C.M.A. 3787/2003 and 2203/2004 before the Hon'ble High Court of A.P. to pass orders in IA No.1776/2003 appointing an Advocate Commissioner to inspect the residential complex. Subsequently the High Court of Andhra Pradesh passed a common order permitting the first opposite party to proceed with the construction of the complex. However no direction was granted against the second opposite party for execution and registration of sale deeds in favour of the prospective purchasers in view of pendency of proceedings under the Arbitration Act. Further by order dated 13-8-2004, Justice Sri P.L.N.Sharma was appointed as sole Arbitrator and the proceedings are under process. Hence in the said circumstances, he was unable to complete his part of the sale agreement and register the flat in favour of the complainant.