SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

I.VENKATANARAYANA, M.SHREESHA
M. Suvarna – Appellant
Versus
V. Pentaiah – Respondent


Advocates:
Counsel for the parties :
For the Appellant :Mr. M.A. Ashfaq Mohiuddin, Advocate.
For the Respondent: Served.

ORDER

Mrs. M. Shreesha, Member — The appellant in F.A. No. 987/2003 is the complainant in C.D. No. 532/2000 on the file of District Forum, Ranga Reddy District.

2. The brief facts as set out in the complaint are that the complainant is the owner of Plot No. 6 admeasuring 220 sq. yards situated at Raghavendranagar locality, Uppal. She entrusted this plot to the opposite party, who is Maistry, for construction of four rooms, one hall, two kitchen rooms, three attached bathrooms and one single bathroom and it was agreed that the construction with all the materials like teak wood shutters with glasses, window grills, flooring with Bethamacherla in all rooms and marble flooring in hall, etc., and both parties entered into an agreement dated 17.2.1999 with the terms and conditions according to which the opposite party should hand over the fully constructed house within three to four months

and the complainant herein paid Rs. 3,80,000/- out of Rs. 4,00,000/- on different dates through cheques and cash. On 12.9.1999 the opposite party executed a document in favour of the complainant admitting the pending works which were left by him and demanded Rs. 10,000/- extra. In all Rs. 3,95,000/- was






















Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top