Landowner liable to sign deed

In a joint development, the landowner is also liable for property-related issues along with the developer

Papiya Roy Barman also known as Papia Roy Burman and her sister Sukhla Roy Barman owned a piece of land in Dum Dum. They entered into a development agreement with Debajit Banik, proprietor of Gems Construction. They also executed a power of attorney in his favour.

Swapan Kuman Aich booked a 1,400 sq ft flat in the building to be constructed. A tripartite agreement was executed on May 19, 2014, through which Banik as the proprietor of Gem Constructions and as the constituted attorney of the Burman sisters who owned the land agreed to sell Aich a 1,400 sq ft residential unit in the proposed building for a total amount of Rs 1.82 million. And the possession was to be given within 14 months.

As the flat was not delivered within the specified time, Aich filed a complaint before the District Forum against Gems Construction and Papia Burman. The other sister who was also a joint owner of the land was not impleaded as a party.

Papia contested, stating that she had nothing to do with the transaction between Aich and the builder. She sought deletion of her name from the proceedings, contending that she was not a necessary party.

The Forum deleted Papia’s name from the complaint and dismissed the case against her. However, the builder was ordered to accept the remaining amount and deliver possession. Aich was awarded Rs 30,000 as compensation. The builder did not challenge the order, but Aich appealed to the State Commission questioning the dismissal of the complaint against Papia. The West Bengal State Commission held Papia, and her sister Sukhla were liable as confirming parties for the execution of the sale deed in favour of Aich.

Papia filed a revision against the order holding her and her sister liable for execution of the sale deed. She argued that both she and her sister could not be held liable since her sister had not been made a party to the dispute.

The National Commission observed that Papia had no right to raise such an objection on behalf of her sister. If Sukhla felt aggrieved by the order, she ought to have independently challenged it. The Commission also pointed out that the power of attorney in favour of the builder had been jointly executed by both the sisters. The agreement for sale was a tripartite agreement, which was executed by both the sisters through the builder as their constituted attorney. So Aich was a consumer of the services rendered by the builder as well as both the sisters.

The Commission noted that the builder had accepted the decision of the Forum. So it was necessary to execute the requisite conveyance deed in Aich’s favour for the flat purchased by him, and the conveyance deed would also require the signatures of both the sisters as the confirming parties. The Commission held that the sisters had been rightly held liable so that Aich as the flat purchaser should not suffer on account of any dispute between the builder and the landowners.

Accordingly, by an order dated November 20, 2018, delivered by Justice V K Jain, the National Commission dismissed Papia’s revision and confirmed the order holding the sister liable for execution of the conveyance deed.
 

The writer is a consumer activist