The burden of proof lies with the claimant to substantiate the quantum of payment made towards the sale consideration of a house site; failure to provide evidence renders the refusal of allotment legally sustainable.

Prayer :

Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, to set aside the order passed by the Hon’ble Principal District Court, Coimbatore in Co.op. Civil Misc. Appeal No.13/2011 dt. 15.04.2013

ORDER

This Civil Revision Petition has been filed challenging the order in Co.op Civil Misc. Appeal No.13 of 2011, dated 15.04.2013 passed by the learned Principal District Judge, Coimbatore, thereby the claim of the petitioner seeking allotment of a house site was rejected.

2. Facts in brief :-

a) The petitioner is an employee of the State Transport Corporation and a member of the 1st respondent / Co-operative House Building Society. The Society had floated “Thekkalur Housing Scheme” during the year 2001 for allotment of house-sites to its members. The petitioner applied for allotment of a site measuring 5½ cents and the provisional price was fixed at Rs.67,100/-, to be recovered in monthly instalments from his salary.

b) According to the petitioner, deductions were made from his salary from August 2002 onwards. Subsequently, the petitioner expressed his intention to cancel the allotment and sought refund of the amounts paid. However, the Society refused to cancel the allotment and later demanded a sum of Rs.85,458/- towards balance sale consideration, stating that the final cost of the site, had been revised.

c) Thereafter, disputes arose between the parties with regard to the amount paid by the petitioner. The petitioner claimed to have paid a total sum of Rs.1,10,000/-, whereas the respondents disputed the same and contended that only a sum of Rs.25,666/- had been paid. The petitioner, therefore, initiated proceedings under Section 90 of the Co-operative Societies Act seeking declaration of ownership over the plot.

d) The 1st respondent, upon enquiry, held that the petitioner had failed to establish payment of Rs.1,10,000/- and consequently refused to direct allotment of the plot, while directing the petitioner to settle the dues with interest. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the learned Principal District Judge, Coimbatore in Co.op. Civil Misc. Appeal No.13 of 2011.

e) The learned Principal District Judge, Coimbatore allowed the said Appeal No.13 of 2011 in part, thereby the refund ordered by the 1st respondent vide order dated 28.07.2010 was set aside and the remaining aspects mentioned in the said order dated 28.07.2010 was confirmed. Challenging the said order, this revision petition has been filed.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner had been allotted a house site and substantial amounts were deducted from his salary towards sale consideration. He further contended that though documentary proof was not produced, it was incumbent upon the respondents to verify their records with respect to deductions made from the petitioner’s salary from August 2002 to September 2007. He further submitted that the authorities have failed to properly adjudicate the issue relating to payment and have mechanically rejected the claim of the petitioner. He also submitted that no enquiry was conducted by the 1st respondent and it is the strong contention that the petitioner paid the required amount, but all the above aspects were not properly considered by the learned Judge, while disposing the appeal. Hence, the impugned order dated 15.04.2013 is unsustainable and liable to be set as