IMPORTANT POINT
Ownership of property has to be proved by documentary evidence.

Rekha Gupta, Presiding Member—The present revision petition has been filed against the judgment dated 01.06.2017 of the Rajasthan State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Jaipur (‘the State Commission’) in First Appeal No.1210 of 2015.

2. The facts relevant for the disposal of the present revision petition are that the petitioner/ complainant himself was the fourth buyer of this house through an agreement of sale executed by Kamla Devi who had purchased this house from Vijay Kumar Singhal who in turn purchased this house from Jai Kumar Lodha, who had purchased the house from Mr Hanuman Singh, respondent no. 2. The petitioner after the purchase of the said flat/ house applied to the respondent no. 1 – Rajasthan Housing Board (in short ‘the Board’) for regularisation of allotment in his name. The Board invited objections from the respondent no. 2 who was the original allottee. Mr Hanuman Singh denied having sold the flat/ house to Jai Kumar Lodha and submitted that all these agreements were false. The Board refused to regularise the flat/ house in the name of the petitioner.

3. A consumer complaint was filed on 10.12.2006 before the District Forum no. 2, who allowed the complaint on 20.10.2008. In appeal, this Commission on 03.07.2009 set aside the order of the District Forum no. 2 and ordered that Hanuman Singh be made a party in the original complaint and the complaint be decided afresh. After that the District Forum no. 3 after hearing the submissions of the petitioner and the Board and respondent no. 2 concluded that dispute is of a civil nature and dismissed the complaint.

4. The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum III, Jaipur City, Jaipur (“the District Forum’) vide its order dated 14.09.2015 observed as under:

“We have heard the arguments of the parties and have perused the record.

According to the above issues it is clear that there is a grave dispute exist between the complainant Harish Kumar and the original allottee Hanuman Singh with respect to the ownership and possession. Where the complainant claims to purchase the said house through agreement from Smt Kamla Devi on the other hand defendant no.2 Hanuman Singh submits tall the documents executed with respect to the alleged house to be false and fabricated.

Likewise the manner in which the complainant describes himself to be the owner of the alleged house and in established possession on the other hand Hanuman Singh claims to be the owner and in possession of the alleged house and submits the documents executed in favour of the complainant to be false and fabricated. In this regard the submissions of Rajasthan Housing Board is liable to be accepted that due to the objections filed by the original allottee of the house Shri Hanuman Singh the regularisation of the said house in favour of the complainant is not possible because the no objection letter and the agreement letter of the original allottee of the house has not been produced before the defendant no. 2. By keeping all the facts and circumstances in the matter to be sighted, the defendant no. 2 by not regularising the house in favour of the complainant has not committed any failure in his services.

On the basis of the above perusal of the fact it is clearly proved that there is a grave dispute between the complainant and the original allottee of the house with respect to its ownership and possession. The defendant no. 2 has submitted the documents that have been executed in favour of the complainant to be false and fabricated. Therefore, the disposal of the said matter cannot be done by this forum in a brief perusal. A detailed production of evidence requires to be submitted on behalf of both the parties with respect to the ownership and possession of the alleged house. Then only the said dispute can be finally disposed off serving the ends of justice.”

5. Aggrieved by the order of the District Forum, the petitioner filed an appeal before the State Commission. The State Commission vide