Mr. Syed Anwar v. Ms. Tanveer Afshan

2

iii. Award the complainant 25,000 (Rupees Twenty-Five Thousand Only) as reimburse the cost of legal notices, consultations, and case filing process.

iv. Direct the opposite parties to bear the expenses of the advocate, which shall be a Rs. 2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs Only) for the case.

v. Grant the complainant Rs.10,00,000 (Rupees Ten Lakhs Only) as compensation for the physical and mental agony since leap 2015 till date.

2. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE:-

1. Complaint against Ms. Tanveer Afshan, a Government Teacher, for Cheating, Mental Harassment, Failure to Deliver Committed Plot, along with the Alleged Support and Involvement of Mr. Mirza Rashee Baig and Mr. Thota Ramesh, The details are as follows: The complainant, Mr. Syed Anwar, along with his brothers, Mr. Syed Ather (NRI-Saudi Arabia and Mr. Syed Mutaner (NRI-Saudi Arabia), was approached by the opposite party, Ms. Tanveer Afshan, with a proposal to purchase a plot in a venture located at Oglapur, Athmakur (M), District Warangal. Ms. Tanveer Afshan assured the complainants of a substantial return on investment in an approve venture by the competent and regulatory body, asserting that Warangal was poised to be declares Mega City. Based on these assurances, a sum of Rs. 23,00,000 (Rupees Three Lakhs Only), including registration of Rs.30,000 (Rupees Thirty Thousand) and other charges, was paid in installments to Ms. T Alshan at her residence, H. No. 16-9- 409/1P/12, Old Malakpet, Hyderabad,

The complainants were promised Plot No. 8, with the understanding that receipts and a booklet be provided upon completion of the payment instalments. Despite repeated requests, the complainant did not receive any receipts or formal documentation Further, the allocations for these of the family members were made as follows: Syed Ather Plot No. 10: Document No. 2015Syed Anwar. Plot No. 8. Initially registered under Document No. 4174/2015 on 21^stSeptember 2015 in the name of Ms. Tanveer Afshan, later changed to Flot No. 9/Part A un Document No. 2905/2023 in the name of Syed Anwar, Syed Mutaher: Plot No. 8: second registration on the same plot under Document Na 4888/2015 on 10th November 2015 in the name of his wife, Ms. Asra Anjum.

2. The venture is not approved by local planning authorities or the Directorate of Town and Country Planning (DTCP), Gram Panchayat Approval and LRS (Layout Regularization Scheme) etc. The final instalment and registration of the plot took place while Mr. Syed Anwar was abroad (in Qatar). He duly sent the required signed documents (Form 32A) for the registration process. However, Ms. Tanveer Afshan exploited Mr. Anwar's absence and unlawfully registered the plot in her name, fabely claiming that the documents had not been received. Furthermore, Ms. Tanveer Afshan

3

stated that Mr. Mirza Rasheed Baig and Mr. Thota Ramesh are alleged to have altered the allocation of Plot No. 8 due to greed and personal reasons. Upon Mr. Anwar's return to India, he sought the transfer of the plot, but Ms. Tanveer Afshan repeatedly delayed the process with various pretexts. This evasive behaviour continued until Mr. Anwar's permanent return to India. Despite his efforts, the registration process was stalled, and with great difficulty, a GPA was obtained. It was later discovered that the plot had been registered in the name of Ms. Asra Anjum, the wife of Mr. Syed Mutaber, 50 days after the initial registration, resulting in dual registrations for the same plot. During this period, Ms. Tanveer Afshan (Real Estate Agent), who is also employed as a government teacher at Govt. Boys Primary School, Dobbi Galli, Old Malakpet, collected various maintenance fees for the entire, including: Rs.10,000 (Rupees Ten Thousand Only) for the identification and narking of the plot.S.15,000 (Rupees Fifteen Thousand Only) for Sewerage Drainage and Access Roads Rs.1,300 (Rupees Thirteen Hundred Only) for the installation of a light pole.

3. The complainant have endured significant distress, including cheating, monitory losses, physical, and mental harassment, due to the actions of Ms. Tanveer Afshan, along with the alleged complicity alteration of by the GPA holders, Mr. Baig and Mr. Ramesh. The specific grievances are as follows:

The venture is not approved by local planning authorities or the Directorate of Town and Country Planning (DTCP), Gram Panchayat Approval and LRS (Layout Regularization Scheme) etc. Despite consistent requests, the opposite party have failed to provide receipts for payments made by the complainant. The plot originally commitment to the complainant was unlawfully registered in the name of Ms. Tanveer Afshan There were significant delays, spanning approximately 9 years, in transferring the plot to the complainant names The complainant were coerced into obtaining a GPA for registration due to false claims by Ms. Tanveer Afshan regarding her inability to secure leave from her school. A different plot, with less frontage than the committed Plot No. 8, was eventually registered. Despite serving a legal notice, the opposite party have neither physically handed over the plot nor provided the GPS coordinates for the aforementioned plot. It was observed that maximum plots owner in the venture are NRIs, making them prime targets for the fraudulent activities orchestrated by opposite party. This entire situation appears to be a well-planned conspiracy, where plots in the venture have been subjected to dual registration, and maintenance fees were systematically collected over time for infrastructure development, including drainage pipelines, roads, and other facilities, with Plot No. 9/ Part A remaining unregistered.

3. WRITTEN VERSION FILED BY OPPOSITE PARTY No 1:-

1. The complainant U/S 35 of consumer protection Act 2019 is not at all maintainable because there is no deficiency of service and above all the complainant and opposite party No. 1 are not be builder and owner, on the other hand they are real brother and

4

sister, as the opposite party no 1 is the elder sisters of the complainant. The complaint is liable to be dismiss on this ground alone. The opposite party No. 1 is the government teacher never harass the complainant and she has not cheated him. The complainant never approached the opposite party No.1 for purchase of the plot at Warangal district, as a matter of fact the mother of the complainant and opposite party No 1 Fasih Unnisa w/o Syed Hyder has approached the opposite party No. 1 for purchasing the plot in the name of the complainant date time of purchased, the complainant was residing in abroad and at the request of Fasi Unnisa the opposite party No.1 purchased the plot in herself name and the fact remains that the entire sale consideration of Rs 1,50,000/- (one lakhs fifty thousand) was paid by Fasih Unnisa to the vendors and the sale deed was executed on 21-09-2015, in the name of opposite party No.1 and thereafter immediately opposite party no 1 handed over the registered sale deed to Fasih unnisa mother of the complainant.

2. The request of the complainant the opposite party no 1 on 16-08-2023 executed the registered G.P. A in his favour to get the sale deed dated: 21-09-2015 transferred in his name in respect of the plot no 9 part/A situated at Warangal district, as the complainant was not cooperating with opposite party no 1 for transferring the sale deed in his name. subsequently the complainant inform the opposite party no 1 that he did not transfer the sale deed in his name because there is a mistake of plot no in the registered sale deed dated 21-09-2015 vide document No 7174/2015, as instead of plot no 9 part/A, the plot No only 9 is mentioned. The fact remains that the opposite party no 1 very first time came to know about the said mistake however the opposite party no 1 on 23-12-2023 executed the rectification deed vide document no 2899/2023 and the same day she transfer the registered sale deed dated: 21-09-2015 in the name of the complainant by executing the registered sale deed on 23-12-2023 vide document No 2905/2023 and all this original document/ were handed over to mother of the complainant Fasih unnisa, In the month of the DEC 2023 itself, therefore the stand taken by the complainant that the opposite party has taken nine years to transfer the registered sale deed in the name of the complainant is absolutely wrong because the opposite party No 1 was acted as per the instruction of her mother Fasih unnisa, further for executing the ratification deed the chargers of Rs 2,00,000/- was paid by opposite party No 1.

3. It is a false and baseless allegation totally denied by the opposite party No.1 that she assured the complainant of substantial return on investment in an approved venture. It is also denied that the complainant paid Rs,3,30,000/- to opposite party No.1 and is also a baseless allegation that plot No.8 will be purchase in the name of complainant, with regard to the venture is not approved by the local planning authorities the same was informed to the mother of the complainant and absolutely there is no communication between the complainant and the opposite party No.1 and it is only the mother of the complainant Fasih Unnisa was dealing with regards to the purchased of the plot and at the instance of Fasi Unnisa the plot was registered by the opposite party NO.1 in herself

5

name as at that time the complainant was working in abroad, therefore the complainant has absolutely no role in purchasing the plot and it is only the mother of the complainant Fasih Unnisa has purchased the plot for his son i.e. the complainant herein and the fact remains that the entire sale consideration and registration chargers was paid by Fasi Unnisa therefore the complaint is liable to be dismiss on this ground alone, as the complainant is not a consumer as per SEC 7 of the consumer protection Act 2019.

4. As it is already mentioned in para supra that absolutely there is no transaction took place between the complainant and opposite party Nol and there is no deficiency of service therefore this commission lack jurisdiction to entertain the present complaint. Further the opposite party No.1 is a respectable government teacher and the complainant just to unnecessary shown her as a real state agent in the complaint just to defame the opposite party No.1 in the society and opposite party No.1 reserved her rights to claim compensation from the complainant by initiating a legal proceeding in the competent court of law. The complainant has no right to claim compensation of Rs, 10, 00,000/-(ten lakhs) from the opposite party No.1 and the opposite party No.1 unnecessary drag to this commission. Further the opposite party No.1 get the sale deed in her name only on the instruction of their mother Fasih Unnisa and therefore the opposite party No.1 has only limited role in purchasing the plot that too for her mother Fasih Unnisa because there is absolutely no negotiation between complainant and opposite party No.1 for purchasing the plot. It is humbly prayed this commission to dismiss the complaint with exemplary cost in the interest of justice.

4. WRITTEN VERSION FILED BY OP Nos 2 & 3:-

1. It is true as per the records Ms Tanveer Afshan a Government Teacher, it is not true to say that cheating, Mental Harassment, and failure to deliver committed plot, along with the alleged support and involvement of Opposite Party Nos 2 and 3. The Further the allocation for three family members were made as follows Side Heading of the Complaint it is submitted that as per Encumbrance Certificate the Plot No 10 has executed in favour of Syed Ather vide Doc No 4887/2015 on 10/11/2015 to an extent of 150 sq yards and it is not true to say that the Plot No 8 allotted in the name of Syed Answer (Who is the complainant herein) Originally the said Plot No 8 allotted and executed Regd Sale deed in the name of Mohammed Abdul Wajid Wahab who is the Husband of Opposite Party No.1 herein vide Document No 4178/2015 on 21/9/2015 itself to an extent of 300 Sq Yards.

2. It is true to say that the Plot No 9 allotted and executed Regd Sale Deed in the name of Tanveer Ashan (Who is the OP No 1 herein) vide Doc No 4174/2015. on 21/9/2015 to an extent of 1505q Yards only. It is true to say that the Plot No 9/A allotted and executed Regd Sale Deed on the request of Tanveer Afshan and Syed Anwer (Who are the Opposite Party No I and Complainant) the Opposite Party No 2 represented on

6

behalf of Syed Anver herein vide Doc Nos 2905/2023 on 23/12/2023 and registered rectification deed No.2899/2023 on 25/12/2023 to an extent of 150 5q Yards only.

3. It is not true to say that Syed Mutaher Plot No 8 Second Registration on the same Plot under Doc No 4888/2015 on 10/11/2015 in the name of his wife Asra Anjum and the Plot No 9 allotted and executed Regid sale Deed in the name of Aara Anjum vide Doc No 4888/2015 on 10/11/2015 to an extent of 150 Sq Yards. The other contents of these paras of complaint are wrong and baseless. It is already knows by the Opposite Party No 1 that the venture is not approved by local planning authorities or Directorate of Town and Country planning (DTC) Gram Panchayath Approved and LRS etc at the time of purchasing the plots by the Opposite Party No 1 herein. These Opposite Party Nos 2 and 3 not known about the Syed Anwer (Who is the complainant herein) send a form 32A for the purpose of Registration process, on the request of the Opposite Party No 1 this Opposite Party. No 2 represent on behalf of complainant Berrien on humanitarian grounds only. These OF Nos 2 and 3 do not know that the Opposite Party No 1 exploited the complainant absence and unlawfully registered the Plot in her name, falsely claiming that the documents had not been received. The Opposite Party No 1 and complainant herein are strict proof of the allegations that Opposite Party Nos 2 and 3 as alleged to have altered the allocation of Plot No 8 due to greed and personal reasons.

4. It is not to true to say that that the Plot had been registered in the name of Asra Anjum the wife of Syed Mutaher 50 days after the initial Registration, resulting in DUAL REGN for the same plot. The other paras are not concerned to these Opposite Party Nos 2 and 3. It is not to true say that these Opposite Party Nos 2 and 3 are not all concerned with the complainant at no point of time, the Opposite Party Nos 2 and 3 already stated about the plots, after satisfied the documents, ownership Purchased the properties by Opposite Party No 1 herein in the year 2015 itself. It is not true to say that the complainant has endured significant distress, including cheating, monitory loss, physical and mental harassment, due to action of Opposite Party No 1 along with the alleged complicity/alteration of by the GPA holder Opposite Party Nos 2 and 3, these Opposite Party Nos 2 and 3 are not at all contacted, seen the complainant at any point of time who is he these Opposite Party Nos 2 and 3 not know. It is submitted that the dispute in between the complainant and Opposite Party No 1 who are own Sister and Brother but the complainant filed false case against the Opposite Party Nos.2 and 3.

5. Already stated to Opposite Party No 1 at the time of purchasing the plots as the venture is not approved layout. The other contents the remaining the complainant is strict proof of the same, these Opposite Party Nos 2 and 3 are not at all by concerned, the false, fabricated, imagination allegations the complainant, the Legal notice issued by the complainant on 4/8/2024 only on the name of Opposite Party No 1 only, but this complaint has filed by adding these Opposite Party Nos 2 and 3 even though without concerned the complainant adding these Opposite Party Nos 2 and 3 in this case for

7

blackmailing harassing, torturing, trying to gain something from these Opposite Party Nos 2 and 3 without fault and default. It is not clearly mentioned which opposite party produce receipts or any record of the payments received from complainant, either in original or attested photocopies, as these Opposite Party Nos 2 and 3 are not at all concerned with complainant. As per the complaint the complainant stated he purchased the plot from the Opposite Party No 1 herein, none other than own Sister and Brother.

6. It is not clearly mentioned which Opposite Party compensate the complainant of the open private current market value of Rs 25, 00,000/-these OP Nos 2 and 3 are not at all concerned of this Award para Opposite Party Nos 2 and 3 are not at all concerned of Advocate Fees para as these Opposite Party Nos 2 and 3 do not know and seen who is the complainant at any point of time. Grant complainant Rs 10,00,000/-as compensation side heading of the complaint, these Opposite Party Nos 2 and 3 not at all concerned, seen the complainant at any point of time who is he do not know by these Opposite Party Nos 2 and 3.

7. These Opposite Party Nos 2 and 3 filing all the Documents and as well as Encumbrance certificate for fair adjudication of the case. It is submitted that one more document Le. the mother of Complainant and Opposite Party No. 1 has given Notarized Affidavit clearly mentioned/stated that I have 5 sons and 2 daughters and one my son's by name Syed Anwer (Who is the complainant herein)while staying in abroad purchased Plot vide Plot No 9(part) A situated at Parkal Atmakur, Warangal Dist (currently Hanam konda Dist) under a Sale Deed vide Document No 4174/2015 and at the time of purchase of the same plot, my son Syed Anwer (Who is complainant) was not staying in India and as per his request the plot was registered in the name of my daughters by name Mrs Tanveer Afshan (who is OP No 1 herein). It is further stated in the Affidavit on 10/1/2024" After return of my son Syed Anwer (who is complainant herein) he collected the original document of the said plot from my daughter Tanveer Afshan (Who is OP No 1 herein) through me and on verification of the said document Syed Anwer (Who is complainant) found faulting the registered documents and demanded for Sale Deed and rectification deed. As per his demand my daughter Tanveer Afshan(Who is OP No 1 herein)prepared a sale deed and rectification deed from the vendor on 23/12/2023 vide doc No 2899/2023 and 2905/2023 on 23/12/2023 transferred the said plot in the name of Syed Anwer (Who is complainant herein) and 1 myself in the presence of attesting witness i.e. my another son and my son in law handed over the Original document to my son Syed Anwer (Who is complainant herein)". Therefore, it is prayed that this Hon'ble Commission may be pleased to dismiss the case with heavy costs, in the interest of justice.

5. During the course of trial, the complainant filed evidence affidavit examined as PW1 and got marked Exs.A1 to A9. Fasihn Unnisa of opposite party No.1 filed evidence affidavit examined as DW2 and no documents are marked. Mr. Mirza Ahmed baig filed evidence affidavit for opposite parties 2&3 examined as DW2 and got marked as Exs B1

8

to B9, both filed written arguments and heard by complainant and opposite parties 2 & 3, hence reserved for order.

6. After perusal of pleadings, the following points are raised for consideration:

1. Whether there exists a consumer-service provider relationship between the complainant and OP No.1?

2. Whether any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice is made out?

3. Whether the complaint is maintainable before this Commission?

7.Point No. 1 & 2: According to the complainant, opposite party No.1 (his sister), along with opposite party Nos. 2 & 3 (GPA holders), misrepresented and induced him to purchase a plot in an unapproved venture at Oglapur, Athmakur Mandal, Warangal. The complainant alleged that he paid Rs. 3,00,000/- in cash to opposite party No.1 for a plot, but the plot was not registered in his name until after 9 years, and that too under a rectification deed. He further alleges harassment and financial loss due to dual registration of the plot under Ex. A3.

Opposite party No.1, a Government Teacher and sister of the complainant, submitted that there is no privity of contract or service provider-consumer relationship between her and the complainant. The entire transaction was initiated by their mother, Smt. Fasih Unnisa, who paid the sale consideration and got the property registered in the name of opposite party No.1. Upon request from the mother, she executed a GPA in favour of the complainant (Ex. B4) and subsequently executed a rectification deed and sale deed (Ex. B5 & Ex. B6) in favour of the complainant in December 2023.She never acted as a

"real estate agent," nor collected any fees or made representations as to returns. The complaint is motivated by personal disputes, and this commission lacks jurisdiction. The opposite party Nos. 2 and 3 have denied all allegations and stated that they have no knowledge of the complainant or any dealings with him. They merely assisted in documentation on humanitarian grounds, at the request of opposite party No.1. They are not vendors, developers, or service providers and had no role in any transaction with the complainant. Absence of Consumer Relationship: The Opposite Party No. 1 has raised a preliminary objection that the Complainant is not a "consumer" under Section 2(7) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, as there exists no commercial or service-provider-consumer relationship between the parties.

It is undisputed and admitted by the Complainant himself that OP No. 1 is his real sister. The transaction in question arose out of intra-family arrangements involving their mother, Mrs. Fasih Unnisa Exhibit B8 dated 10.01.2024. In the case of Morgan Stanley Mutual Fund v. Kartick Das ., (1994) 4 SCC 225, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that mere familial arrangements or expectations cannot be equated to hiring of services for

9

consideration. This Commission finds no privity of contract nor a commercial service relationship between the Complainant and Opposite Party No. 1. Payment of Consideration - Not Substantiated: The Complainant alleges payment of Rs. 23,00,000, but fails to provide any sufficient proofs her documents nor any bank transaction reflecting transfer to Opposite party No.1's account. Like "Receipts bearing signature of Opposite party No. 1Agreement to Sell, MOU, or Letter of Intent". All exhibits produced (Exhibits A4 to A6) are either self-generated or unrelated WhatsApp messages with no corroboration.

In contrast, Opposite party No. 2 & 3 have produced the Sale Deed (Exhibit B5, Doc No. 4174/2015) showing that Plot No. was purchased by her in her own name, and that the funds were arranged by their mother, as per her affidavit (Exhibit B8). In absence of any concrete proof of consideration from the Complainant to Opposite party No. 1 the claim is falls.

Plot Ownership and Registration - Lawful Transfer Proven the Complainant argues that Plot No. 8 was promised to him and was fraudulently registered in someone else's name. However, the Encumbrance Certificates and Registered Documents (Exhibits B2 to B6) clearly show Plot No. 9 was registered in OP No. 1's name on 21/09/2015 (Ex. B5 Doc No. 4174/2015). On 23/12/2023, the plot was voluntarily transferred to the Complainant via Rectification Deed (Doc No. 2899/2023 Ex. B3), Registered Sale Deed (Doc No. 2905/2023 Ex. B2), GPA (Exhibit B8) executed earlier in good faith. No evidence is produced to prove that Plot No. 8 was ever formally allocated or contractually agreed upon in writing. Thus, the Complainant has been transferred a plot and does not remain dispossessed. The allegation of fraud or cheating is therefore unsubstantiated.

Delay and Alleged Harassment - Not Wilful or Malicious while the Complainant alleges delay in the transfer, the timeline reflects that the Complainant was residing abroad during most of the relevant period. OP No. 1 executed the GPA on 16/08/2023 Ex. A2 and upon discovering the discrepancy in the plot number, promptly executed a Rectification Deed and Sale Deed on 23/12/2023, at her own expense of Rs. 2,00,000 (Exhibit B2). The delay is therefore explained and not indicative of malicious intent or harassment. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Dr. J.J. Merchant v. Shrinath Chaturvedi [(2002) 6 SCC 635] held that mere delay does not constitute deficiency unless mala fide is established, which is not the case here.

Allegations against OP Nos. 2 and 3 - No Evidence the Complainant alleges that Mr. Mirza Rasheed Baig and Mr. Thota Ramesh (OP Nos. 2 & 3) assisted in dual registration and collusion. However, the Complainant admits he never dealt with them directly. No documents (agreements, correspondence, or payment receipts) show any transaction or collusion. No legal notice or complaint was issued to them prior to these

10

proceedings and legal notice dated 04/09/2024). Therefore, their impleadment is held to be unnecessary and motivated, and allegations are dismissed for want of proof. Venture Approval Status - Known and Accept both parties admit the venture was not DTCP-approved and only had Gram Panchayat approval. The Complainant's own documents reflect this. There is no material to suggest that Opposite party No. 1 misrepresented this fact or induced the Complainant with false assurances. As per the Hon'ble NCDRC in M/s. TDI Infrastructure Ltd. v. Jagdish Ahluwalia, RP No. 2508/2019buyers in unauthorized colonies are expected to conduct due diligence, and claims of being "misled" are rejected in absence of contractual misrepresentation. Complainant is not a "Consumer" under Section 2(7) -to fall within the scope of the C P Act, the complainant must prove that he availed services for consideration from the opposite parties. Therefore, the complainant does not fall under the definition of

"consumer". In the case of Laxmi Engineering Works vs. P.S.G. Industrial Institute, (1995) 3 SCC 583 the Hon'ble Supreme Court held "Consumer is one who avails services for consideration".

Kishore Lal vs. ESI Corporation, (2007) 4 SCC 579 - Relationship must be of commercial service provider and consumer, not familial.

Sanjeev Jindal vs. State Bank of India, II (2018) CPJ 115 (NC) - Familial transactions are outside the ambit of Consumer Protection Act.

Rajeev Metal Works vs. Mineral Sales Pvt. Ltd., 2000 SCC OnLine NC 46 - Absence of consideration bars claim under CPA.

Dr. Kunal Saha vs. AMRI Hospital, (2013) 9 SCC 385 - No relief can be granted without cogent documentary proof.

Anil Kumar vs. Shiv Nagar Coop. Society, II (2020) CPJ 177 (NC) - Allegations of fraud require adjudication by civil courts, not consumer forum.

Jurisdiction of Consumer Forum - Lacks Jurisdiction. The dispute pertains to ownership of immovable property, documents, and internal family transactions. The forum lacks jurisdiction to decide on title disputes, fraud allegations, or rectification of sale deeds, which are triable by civil courts.

Harshad Chiman Lal Modi vs. DLF Universal Ltd., (2005) 7 SCC 791 - Disputes involving title to immovable property fall under civil jurisdiction. Ghaziabad Development Authority vs. Balbir Singh, AIR 2004 SC 2141 - Consumer forum cannot adjudicate disputes of title or specific performance. In view of above facts and circumstances we are at considered view that the complaint is filed by complainant against individual capacity as such the complaint is not maintainable as per section 2 (42) "under a contract personal service" and the complainant is not a consumer as per the definition of section 2(7) of the consumer

11

protection Act, has failed to establish any deficiency in service, unfair trade practice, or fraud on the part of Opposite parties Hence the complaint is liable to dismissed.

7. Point No.3: In the result the complaint is dismissed. Typed to my dictation and pronounced in the Open court on this the 12^thday of August, 2025.

Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-

MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Complainant:

PW1 - Mr. Syed Anwar; For Opposite Party:

DW2: Mr. Mirza Ahmed baig;

DOCUMENTS MARKED

For complainant:

Ex.A01 - is the copy of Declaration; Ex.A02 - is the copy of Special power of Attorney; Ex.A03 - is the copy of Document return on 19.08.2023 from sub-Registrar Azampura; Ex.A04 & 5 - is the copy of Whats app chat photo;

Ex.A06 - is the copy of OGLAPUR;

Ex.A07 - is the copy of CD-Audio & videos;

Ex.A08 - is the copy of Trip sheet/Cash Bill;

Ex.A09 - is the copy of statement of Encumbrance on property; Ex.A10 - is the copy of complaint;

For Opposite Party:

Ex.B01 - is the copy of statement of Encumbrance on Property; Ex.B02 - is the copy of sale Deed for Rs.2,55,000/-;

Ex.B03 - is the copy of Rectification Deed;

Ex.B04 - is the copy of sale Deed for Rs.2,40,000/-;

Ex.B05 - is the copy of sale Deed for Rs.1,20,000/-;

Ex.B06 - is the copy of sale Deed for Rs.1,20,000/-;

Ex.B07 - is the copy of Legal Notice;

Ex.B08 - is the copy of Affidavit;

Ex.B09 - is the copy of Agreement of sale Cum General Power of Attorney; Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-

MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT

Dil

//certified true free copy//