RAVINDRASAKHARAM NAGARE Vs. NIVRUTI NAMDEO WAGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SH . Nivruti Namdeo Wagh, the complainant purchased one row house bearing No.11 constructed on an area of 700 sq.ft which was sold to the complainant vide agreement dated 01.03.2003 for a sum of ? 3,51,000/ - by Sh.Ravindra Sakharam Nagare, the OP. Before entering into the agreement, the complainant had paid a sum of ?1,21,000/ - through cheque, ? 55,000/ - through another cheque and a sum of ?1, 00,000/ -, total being a sum of ? 2,21,000/ -, to the OP. The OP had issued the receipts for the same. The complainant also paid cash of ?15,000/ - on 05.03.2003. Consequently, a total sum of ? 2,36,000/ - was paid. It appears that, although, the complainant was put in possession of the premises in dispute, yet, the construction was not fully completed. The complainant made a request to the OP before the construction of row house for transfer of name in the house tax as well as in the completion certificate, registered deed, etc. Since the needful was not be done, a police complaint was filed with the Police Commissioner. Notice, dated 29.04.2006, through the Advocate, was also sent and thereafter, this complaint dated 28.07.2006 with the following prayers, was filed : -

(2.) THE OP, in his reply, has set up the following defences. He has denied all these contentions. He, however, stated that the description of the property as stated in the complaint by the complainant is correct. The payment of the amount on this count, has also been denied. It is alleged that the complainant is working in the Central Jail, Nasik, therefore, it is to be presumed that he will use his services of serving in police department. It is explained that from the documents mentioned in the legal notice go to show that the complainant is the original member of the Society and the house in dispute was allotted to the complainant. However, the Society was not arrayed as a party in this case. The complainant has not paid any amount. The complainant is not able to fulfill the transaction of the agreement and, therefore, the complainant had given the original agreement to the OP. The original agreement is not signed by the OP.

(3.) IT is further explained that the complainant is the relative of the OP. The transaction between the complainant and OP was personal general business. The complainant has knowledge of housing construction. OP had taken the above said amount from the complainant on interest basis for his business and for security of such amount, the complainant had time to time, made some agreements with OP. It may be mentioned here that those agreements did not see the light of the day. It is averred that since the complainant was in the Government service, therefore, he was unable to give any loan receipts and therefore, made different agreements relating to construction of building property. It is explained that from the notice, it appears that the complainant had completed the booking formalities on 11.10.1997 and time to time, paid an amount of ?2,36,000/ -. The case of the petitioner that the agreement between the parties was executed on 01.01.2003 and the possession was given to the complainant on 01.01.2003, but the complainant has not produced such possession receipts. It is contended that the petitioner did not pay amount of ?3,51,000/ - as consideration in reference to row house to the respondent. The case is barred by time.