MOHAN CO. PVT LTD Vs. SANTOSH YADAV

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal emanates from judgment rendered by the U.P. State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Lucknow in Complaint Case No.C/156/SC/98. By the impugned judgment, the State Commission finally allowed the complaint, directing execution of sale deed in respect of the plot in question m joint names of the complainant Smt. Santosh Yadav and one Smt. Murti Devi on payment of Rs.7,280 along with interest @ 6% till the date of the order to the appellants.

(2.) A few facts may be stated at the outset in order to highlight contours of the dispute. One Somdev Yadav had booked three flats with M/s. Mohan Co. (P) Ltd. of which late Shri M.C. Mohan was the Director. Somewhere in 1990, said M.C. Mohan died. O.P. No.1, Jintender Mohan is his son. The three flats booked by late Somdev Yadav in or about 1969 considered of Plot No. 12 situated at Rajendra Garden area. Admittedly, it was purchased by Somdev Yadav in his own name. The second plot bearing No. 150, Ravindra Garden, Lucknow was booked in the name of Smt. Murti Devi, who was the wife of his brother. There is no dispute about the above said two plots. The third plot, which is subject matter of the dispute, is Plot No.123, Chand Ganj Garden, Lucknow of which the transaction could not be completed by said Somdev Yadav during his life time. It appears that Somdev Yadav died somewhere in 1989.

(3.) For the sake of convenience, the parties to the dispute maybe hereinafter referred to by their original nomenclature as was in the State Commission. It may be mentioned that though the Plot No. 123 was booked jointly in the name of complainant, Smt. Santosh Yadav and her sister-in-law by name Smt. Murti Devi Yet, said Smt. Murti Devi was not made party to the proceedings in the complaint. It may be further stated that complainant, Smt. Santosh made feeble attempt to improvise her case by seeking amendment in the complaint the effect that Smt. Murti Devi had relinquished her rights in her favour as a result of family settlement. The amendment was not allowed by the State Commission. The Revision Petition preferred by complainant. Smt. Santosh came to be dismissed. We may notice that there is absolutely no material on record to show that said Smt. Murti Devi, at any point of time, relinquished her rights in respect of disputed Plot No. 123 in favour of complainant, Smt. Santosh Yadav. Still, however, such issue is of not of much significance. It is well settled that anyone of the co-owner or prospective co-vendee can maintain action for recovery of the property notwithstanding absence of any prospective co-vendee to join the litigation.