JUDGMENT : Asper N.K. Jain, J. (President):- Thisappeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act by opposite parties,arises from the order dated 7-8-2006 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Bhopal in C.C. No. 324/2005 requiringopposite parties to complete the construction of the house in question,delivered the possession thereof to the complainant and also pay to herinterest on her deposits, general damages Rs .30,000/- and cost Rs . 2,000/-. 2.Appellant-opposite parties No. 1-Sardar V.P. Singh and No. 2-Sardar Harinderpal Singh are father and son respectively.Appellant No. 3-Sardar Gagandeep Singh owned a plotof land C-22, admeasuring 2337 sq. ft. at Punjabi Bagh , Raisen Road , Bhopal .He on 18-3-2003 entered into a joint venture agreement with appellant-oppositeparty No. 2-Sardar Harinderpal Singh, who undertookto construct three duplex houses on the said land two of which in turn would bemade available to the latter and one to the former for sale to others. Respondent-complainanthad booked one such house No. C-22/1 and a tripartite agreement on 17-11-2003 was entered into amongst the parties, i.e., appellant Nos. 2, 3 and complainant.The price of the house was fixed at Rs . 5 ,60,000 /-. The amount was required to be paid in installmentsdepending on the progress of the construction of the house. Aseparate sale deed of a part of the land admeasuring 830 sq. ft. = 77.14 sq. mtr . on which the house was to be constructed wasexecuted in complainant's favour on 31-10-2003 byappellant No. 3-Sardar Gagandeep Singh for a totalconsideration of Rs . 2,47,000/-. As per details ofpayment given in the sale deed Rs . 2,00,000/- werepaid through an account payee cheque dated 7-11-2003drawn on SBI, Sultania Road Branch Bhopal while Rs . 47,000/- in cash. It is also no more in dispute thatthe saiu cheque of Rs . 2 ,00,000 /- remained uncashed by the appellants until after execution of theaforesaid two documents, i.e., the agreement dated 17-11-2003 and sale deed dated 31-10-2003 . It appears that lateron, respondent-complainant stopped payment of the said cheque which has led to some litigation between the parties under Section 138 of theNegotiable Instrument Act pending before the JMJC, Bhopal . 3.Briefly stated the case of respondent-complainant before the District Forum wasthat total price of the house including cost of the land was fixed at Rs . 5,60,000/- and that cheque of Rs . 3.Briefly stated the case of respondent-complainant before the District Forum wasthat total price of the house including cost of the land was fixed at Rs . 5,60,000/- and that cheque of Rs . 2,00,000/- was made available to the appellantsonly by way of security for payment of the amount. It was agreed amongst theparties that once a sum equivalent to Rs . 2 ,00,000 /- is paid to appellants, they would return the cheque to the complainant without getting the same encashed . It was thus, contended that only a sum of Rs . 97,000/- remains to be paid to the appellants towardsthe cost of the house which the complainant was always and still prepared topay on delivery of the house to her. However, the appellant-opposite partieshave failed to complete the construction and are wrongly demanding Rs . 2,00,000/- over and above, the said sum of Rs . 97,000/-from the complainant. 4.Appellants by their joint reply contested the case of therespondent-complainant and it was contended that the said amount of Rs . 5,60,000/- was towards construction cost only and thecost of the land Rs . 2,47,000/- was payableseparately. It was further explained that the appellants did not submit the cheque to the bank for encashment at the request of therespondent-complainant who did not then have sufficient money in balance in heraccount. The payment of cheque was illegally stoppedby respondent and for which she is being prosecuted in the Magistrate's Court.It is further contended that appellant No. 1 has been wrongly impleaded as there was no privity of any contract between him and the complainant. 5.The Forum below after taking evidence of the parties concluded that total costof the house including that of the land was Rs .5,60,000/- and that respondent-complainant is liable to pay only Rs . 97,000/- to the appellants on latter's completingconstruction and delivering the possession of the house to her. With thesefindings the order as aforesaid was passed by the Forum. 6.We have heard learned Counsel for parties and also gone through the evidentiarymaterial on record. The only question requiring determination in the case iswhether total cost of the house including the land was Rs .5,60,000/-only or that Rs . 2,47,000/- were payableseparately towards cost of land. With thesefindings the order as aforesaid was passed by the Forum. 6.We have heard learned Counsel for parties and also gone through the evidentiarymaterial on record. The only question requiring determination in the case iswhether total cost of the house including the land was Rs .5,60,000/-only or that Rs . 2,47,000/- were payableseparately towards cost of land. 7.Before we advert to the aforesaid question it may be stated at the out-set thatboth the transactions, i.e., the agreement dated 17-11-2003 and the sale deed dated 31-10-2003 were entered into between appellantNos. 2 and 3 on one side and respondent-complainant on the other. Appellant No.1-Sardar V.P. Singh was not a party to any of these transactions and no orderfor completion of construction and payment of any compensation could,therefore, be passed against this appellant. It is true that a compositereceipt of payments Rs . 20,000/- on 30-9-2003 and Rs . 10.000/- on 7-10-2003 has been passed by appellant No.1- Sardar V.P. Singh, but the same seems to have beenpassed by him on behalf of his son appellant No. 2-Harinderpal Singh. He couldat best be termed as a proper party, not a necessary party and no order forcompletion of construction or payment of money could legally be passed againsthim. 8.This brings us to the merits of the case. It is aptly said that a man may telllie, but not the circumstances. In the instant case also although the said twodocuments have been drafted (obviously by the appellant Nos. 2 and 3) in such amanner so as to give an impression that these are two separate transactionswholly independent of each other and that the price Rs .5,60,000/- was only towards cost of construction not of the land, however thecircumstances as unfolded by the evidentiary material on record leave no mannerof doubt that both these documents were parts of the same transaction, i.e.,construction and sale of house to the complainant and price Rs .5,60,000/- fixed under the agreement was for both, the cost of land and cost ofconstruction. 9.The construction of the house was to be undertaken by appellant No. 2 under ajoint venture agreement dated 18-3-2002 entered into between him and appellant No. 3. 9.The construction of the house was to be undertaken by appellant No. 2 under ajoint venture agreement dated 18-3-2002 entered into between him and appellant No. 3. Appellant No. 3 was required tomake the land available to appellant No. 2 for construction of three HIG Duplex houses on the land and in turn appellant No. 2 was made entitle to selltwo nouses leaving the one to appellant No. 3. It isin pursuance of this joint venture agreement that these appellants later onentered into tripartite agreement with respondent-complainant and later on withtwo other persons namely Rakesh Kumar and B.K. Dubey . It is significant to note that agreements with thesetwo other persons were entered into on 19-7-2004 and 31-1-2005 , while thesale deeds in their favour were executed on 23-7-2004 and 28-3-2005 , respectively. However, in the case ofrespondent-complainant this process was reversed and the execution of the saledeed dated 31-10-2003 preceded the execution of the agreement dated 17-11-2003 . Generally in such cases of joint venturebetween the owner of the land and the builder, tripartite agreement alwaysprecedes the execution of sale deed, both being part of the same transaction.It appears that in the instant case, the procedure adopted by appellants wasdeliberate attempt so as to make these two transactions to look separate andindependent of each other. 10.In the sale deed dated 31-10-2003 a sum of Rs . 47,000/- is shown to have been receivedin cash by the appellants. Complainant has filed and proved in evidence thereceipts of payment of this amount of Rs . 47,000/-.First payment was of Rs . 11,000/-, while the lattertwo payments were of Rs . 20,000/- and Rs . 16,000/- made on 30-9-2003 and 7-10-2003 .While Rs . 11,000/- were admittedly paid by way ofregistration charges the receipt of latter two payments clearly carries anentry that these payments have been made against cost of duplex house No. 22/1.If this amount was paid towards cost of the plot, there was no occasion for theappellants to treat as payments towards cost of the house. Thereis nothing on record to show that any other amount of Rs .47,000/- was paid by complainant to the appellants towards cost of the land.Similar facts are evidenced by the agreements dated 19-7-2004 and 31-1-2005 and the sale deeds dated 23-7-2004 and 28-3-2005 entered into by the appellants with the said twoother purchasers namely Rakesh Kumar and B.K. Dubey . Thereis nothing on record to show that any other amount of Rs .47,000/- was paid by complainant to the appellants towards cost of the land.Similar facts are evidenced by the agreements dated 19-7-2004 and 31-1-2005 and the sale deeds dated 23-7-2004 and 28-3-2005 entered into by the appellants with the said twoother purchasers namely Rakesh Kumar and B.K. Dubey . In the case of B.K. Dubey payments of Rs . 50,000/- each by two cheques were common in both, the agreement dated 31-1-2005 and the sale deed dated 28-3-2005 . In the case of Rakesh Kumar it was clearly stated on the agreement itselfthat cost Rs . 7 ,50,000 /-would include the cost of land also. It is further significant to note that thetotal cost charged from these two persons was less than the amount of Rs . 8,07,000/- claimed by appellants againstrespondent-complainant even when the transactions in favour of said two other persons were much latter in time. Needless to say that by thetime the houses were sold to said two other persons,there must have been substantial escalation in price of the land and the costof construction. Judged in the totality of the circumstances as evidenced bythe material on record we find ourselves in the total agreement that thefinding of the District Forum that the total cost of the house including theplot on which it is constructed, was Rs . 5 ,60,000 /- and the respondent-complainant was, therefore,liable to pay only Rs . 97,000/- to the appellants oncompletion of construction and delivery of the house to her. 11.Even if we examine the case with appellants' point of view that is to say thatthe two transactions were separate and independent of each other then it wouldbe seen that the transaction of sale was complete no sooner the sale deed wasexecuted and if any money under that transaction remained due from therespondent-purchaser then the appellants would be entitled to recover the sameas per law. However, they cannot refuse to perform the agreement forconstruction of house even after payment of money by the respondent as per thatagreement. It is significant to note here that a case under Section 138 of theNegotiable Instrument Act is already pending between appellant No. 3 andrespondent-complainant and the parties are therefore, free to ventilate theirgrievances on that point before the Court concerned. For the purpose of thiscase the finding is irresistible that respondent-complainant has deposited Rs . It is significant to note here that a case under Section 138 of theNegotiable Instrument Act is already pending between appellant No. 3 andrespondent-complainant and the parties are therefore, free to ventilate theirgrievances on that point before the Court concerned. For the purpose of thiscase the finding is irresistible that respondent-complainant has deposited Rs . 4,63,000/- towards cost of the house, with theappellant Nos. 1 and 2 and the latters are therefore,liable to complete the construction and deliver the possession to thecomplainant on her making payment of the balance amount Rs .97,000/- only. 12.The Forum below besides directing completion of construction and delivery ofpossession has awarded Rs . 30,000/- as generaldamages and allowed interest at saving bank rates applicable from time to time,on the amount of Rs . 4,67,000/- deposited by therespondent-complainant. In our considered view payment of interest alone wassufficient to meet the ends of justice. 13.We thus allow the appeal in part and delete the order for payment ofcompensation Rs . 30,000/-. However, rest of the orderof the Forum below shall remain unaltered. We also make no order as to costs ofthis appeal.