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

D.APPA RAO, M.SHREESHA
Janachaitanya Housing Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
M. Dattatreya – Respondent


Counsel for the Parties:
For the Appellant:M/s. Gopi Rajesh, Associates, Advocates.
For the Respondent:Mr. L. Sudhakar Reddy, Advocate.

ORDER

M. Shreesha, Member—These appeals are disposed of by a common order since the facts are identical in both the cases.

F.A. No.1592/2007:

2. Aggrieved by the order in C.C.No.464/2006 on the file of District Forum-I, Hyderabad, opposite party preferred this appeal.

3. The brief facts as stated in the complaint are that the complainant purchased a plot from opposite party admeasuring 200 squares yards in the venture of Sai Lakshmi II situated at Nanakramguda village, Serilingampally Mandal, R.R. District in the year 2000 for a consideration amount of Rs.1,700 per sq. yd. and the sale consideration amount is payable in 40 instalments. The opposite party issued a pass book bearing No. 186 and the complainant paid 18 monthly instalments amounting to Rs.2,07,500 from 3.6.2000 to 6.11.04. The complainant submitted that he insisted the opposite party to produce the documents of title and layout and in November, 2004 insisted to allot a particular plot so that he will pay the entire balance sale consideration but on 15.11.2005 the opposite party issued a notice stating that the complainant defaulted in making payments as per the terms and conditions vide Clause No.19/20. The complainant











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