IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) Breach – A beach of conveying a property with a non-existent title occurred in 1984 itself.
(2) Delivery of Possession – There was no delivery of possession nor is there anything to indicate that the complainants undertook any exercise for recovering possession of the land for more than three decades.
(3) Excuse – The excuse of coming to know about the status of unavoidability of the land in 2018 is unreasoned and logically unpalatable.
(4) Explanation – There is no plausible explanation in the complaint, as no one would reasonably wait for 34 years to have knowledge about the status of the land which they had purchased more than three decades ago.

ORDER

IA/3146 & 3148/2024

At the outset, having perused the cause shown for the delay of 32 days in filing of the appeals, the same appears to be sufficient and hence the delay is condoned. The applications are allowed and the appeals shall be treated to be within time.

Appeals

2. The appeals were entertained on 07.03.2024, when the following order was passed:

“These two Appeals have been listed today for admission. However, learned Counsel for the Appellants has sent a letter requesting for an adjournment on account of his personal difficulty.

The Appeals arise out of the Orders passed by the Telangana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission whereby the Complaints had been dismissed as not maintainable relying on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Estate Officer, Chandigarh Administration and Anr. versus Charanjit Kaur reported in (2022) 13 SCC 475 decided on 07.09.2021. It has been held by the State Commission that the transaction of a sale deed of a plot of land amounts to a negotiation of an immovable property and passing of title, as such it does not fall within the definition of deficiency so as to entertain the Complaint within the ambit of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

The Appeals have been filed with a delay of 32 days and is accompanied by delay condonation Applications.

One of the grounds raised in the Appeals is that the land had been sold in favour of the Complainants without disclosing the fact that there was a dispute regarding title, and therefore this deception on the part of the Opposite Party, will amount to a deficiency of service enabling the maintainability of the complainant before the Consumer Forum.

For this reference can be made to an Order relied by the Appellant, passed by this Commission on 10.11.2023 by a two Member Bench of this Commission in First Appeal No. 63 of 2012 / Appeal Execution No. 205 of 2018, J. Nagi Reddy versus Ravi Shankar and Ors. From a perusal of the aforesaid Order in the case of J. Nagi Reddy (Supra) it appears that the builder in that case had constructed the flat and sold it to the Complainants without informing the buyers about the legality and the status of the title of the disputed land. While dealing with the issue the Bench has held in Paragraph No.-14 as under:—

“14. In view of the above discussions and the facts emerged, it is clear that as on the date when the Appellant had entered into the subject agreement dated 07.12.2005 with the Complainant, there was a dispute about the title of the land in question, which the Appellant and respondent No. 3 and 4 are aware and did not notify the Complainant. Further, in terms of Para 8 of the Agreement dated 07.12.2005, in any case, the possession of the property was to be delivered by February, 2006. However, the Sale Deed executed between the Parties on 06.01.2006 without physical possession of the Flat in question as evidently the Sale Deed was required to be Mortgaged with IDBI Bank for releasing of payments to Appellant (the Builder). On the other hand, in terms of (b) and (c) of the Sale Deed executed between the Parties on 06.01.2006, it was stated by the Appellant that there was no dispute in respect of the property in question. Therefore, as on the date of execution of the Agreement, the title of property was under dispute and the Appellant was aware and, however, did not notify the Complainants. On the other hand, asserted in the Sale Deed that the said property was free from and dispute and litigation. Therefore, there was unfair trade practice and deficiency in service by the Appellant.”

Since the learned Counsel has sent a request for adjournment let the Appeals be listed for admission / disposal on 01.07.2024 to enable the learned Counsel to proceed with the matter.”

3. Today arguments have been advanced at length at the admission stage itself and therefore the appeals are being finally disposed off.

4. These two appeals have been filed questioning the order dated 07.11.2023, passed