TAMIL NADU HOUSING BOARD Vs. P GOVINDARAJU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE opposite party in C.P.O.P.20/99 on the file of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Dharmapuri at Krishnagiri is the appellant herein.

(2.) THE case of the complainant was as follows: He was allotted a house site measuring an extent of 2100 sq.ft., from Temple land scheme and the scheme in Plot No. C -46 for putting up additional construction as per the allotment order dated 23.9.1986 in favour of the 2nd complainant mother of the 1st complainant. The value was fixed at Rs. 28,800. Vacant possession was handed over to the 2nd complainant on receipt of the sale price and a no objection certificate was issued on 14.2.1988. After obtaining permission the 2nd complainant put up a construction in her separate site and in the disputed site. On 19.4.1991 the 2nd complainant executed a registered gift deed in favour of the 1st complainant and delivery was given to him. When the 1st complainant took effective steps to put up construction as per the approved plan, it came to the knowledge of the 1st complainant that sale deed was not executed in favour of the 2nd complainant by the opposite party. Therefore, the 1st complainant caused a notice to be issued on 22.9.1997 to the opposite party for calling upon the opposite party to execute the sale deed. Since there was no response, the complaint was lodged.

(3.) THE opposite party resisted the complaint inter alia contending as follows: The value of the land was fixed at Rs. 28,800. On receipt of the amount the plot was allotted to the complainant No. 2 only for the public convenience and possession was handed over to one P.Srinivasulu, son of the 2nd complainant and a condition in the agreement was that the plot allotted should not be alienated or gifted. However the complainants had entered into an agreement to sell the plot allotted in their favour and this would show that they were not entitled to any relief as sought for in the complaint and the plot should be used only as per the terms envisaged in the agreement and there was no deficiency in service.