The main legal point established in the judgment is that there cannot be two agreements for sale between the same parties relating to the same property, as per Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882.

JUDGMENT :

Dinesh Maheshwari, J.

Leave granted.

2. By way of these appeals, the appellant has essentially questioned the common judgment and order dated 23.08.2018 in Revision Petition Nos. 1468-1469 of 2015 whereby the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi,¹[Hereinafter referred to as ‘the National Commission’] has reversed the order passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Kolkata,²[Hereinafter referred to as ‘the State Commission’]; and has restored the order passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, South 24-Parganas District Court, Alipore,³[Hereinafter referred to as ‘the District Forum’.] granting relief to the complainants (respondents herein) on their grievances against the appellant for execution of the Deed of Conveyance in terms of the agreement for sale. The appellant has also challenged the common order dated 27.09.2018, whereby the National Commission has rejected the review applications bearing Nos. 338 and 344 of 2018.

3. Shorn of unnecessary details, the relevant background aspects of the matter are as follows:-

3.1. The contesting respondents herein had preferred respective complaint cases before the District Forum with the grievance that the present appellant and the respondent No. 3, in spite of having received substantial sum of money against total consideration in terms of respective agreements for sale, had not executed and registered the Deed of Conveyance in relation to the property in question.

3.2. In Complaint Case No. 111 of 2013, the complainants [contesting respondents of SLP(C) Nos. 20768-69 of 2019] asserted that the total sale consideration had been Rs. 9,00,000/- and they had paid a sum of Rs. 5,79,000/-. In Complaint Case No. 112 of 2013, the complainants [contesting respondents of SLP(C) Nos. 23401-02 of 2019] asserted that the total sale consideration had been Rs. 7,00,000/- and they had made payment of a sum of Rs. 4,92,000/-. In Complaint Case No. 111 of 2013, the present appellant attempted to suggest before the District Forum that there had been two separate agreements for sale, one for the consideration of Rs. 7,00,000/- and another for the consideration of Rs. 9,00,000/-; and the flat was agreed to be sold for a total consideration of Rs. 16,00,000/-. In relation to Complaint Case No. 112 of 2013, the appellant alleged that there had been two agreements of Rs. 7,00,000/- each, leading to total sale consideration of Rs.14,00,000/-.

4. The District Forum rejected the aforesaid suggestions of the appellant about existence of two agreements in each case; and while finding that there was no misrepresentation by the complainants, directed the appellant to execute and register the Deed of Conveyance after receiving payment of the balance consideration. Of course, the District Forum did not discuss the matter in necessary details but, in substance, found it justified to issue the directions in terms of the case of the complainants.

5. In appeal, however, the State Commission agreed with the submissions of the present appellant with reference to the fact that the complainant of Complaint Case No. 111 of 2013 had shown the sale consideration as Rs.7,00,000/-in the Government Department as also in the Bank while seeking loan. In relation to Complaint Case No. 112 of 2013, the State Commission observed that there were two agreements of even date without any explanation and it indicated a foul play. On these considerations, the State Commission dismissed both the complaint cases.

6. The National Commission, on the other hand, meticulously examined the material on record and disagreed with the observations of the State Commission.

6.1. The National Commission took note of the stand of the parties and found that in Complaint Case No. 111 of 2013, the present appellant had not been able to produce the alleged second agreement. The National Commission further observed that though in Complaint Case No. 112 of 2013, two agreements for Rs. 7,00,000/- each w