LAWS(DLH)-1987-2-29

MEHAR SINGH Vs. MAHENDRA SINGH

Decided On February 19, 1987
MEHAR SINGH Appellant
V/S
MAHENDRA SINGH Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiff (respondent herein) filed a suit praying for a decree to the effect that the plaintiff is the rightful owner by purchase from defendant No. 1 of the tractor Hindustan-50, registration No. DLL 7253 bearing engine No. 69124283, chassis No. HT 6783 Model 1969 and for a permanent injunction restraining the defendants from claiming the possession of the tractor and from interfering in the possession and custody of tractor with the plaintiff. The suit was decreed by the judgment and decree dated 28th Nov., 1977 passed by Shri Jaspal Singh, Additional District Judge, Delhi. This is first appeal of the defendants.

(2.) According to the allegations made in the plaint the plaintiff purchased the tractor Hindustan-50 bearing registration No. DLL 7253, Engine No. 69124283, Chassis No. HT 6783, Model 1969 from defendant No. 1 for a sum of Rs. 44,100.00 on 2nd Sept., 1974; that the consideration for purchase was withdrawn from the Banks by the plaintiff on 2nd Sept., 1974, i.e., Rs. 11,000.00 from Home Saving A/C No. 137 from Central Bank of India, Nangal Dewat branch and Rs. 30,000.00 from his saving bank A/c No. 305 from the Bank of India, Gurgaon branch; that the plaintiff had Rs. 3,100.00 from his own saving kept at home and that the amount of Rs. 44.100.00 was paid to defendant No. 1 in Gurgaon on 2nd Sept., 1974. It is further pleaded in the plaint that the registration book of the tractor was not with defendant No. 1 on 2nd Sept., 1974 which was alleged by defendant No. 1 to have been lost by him and he undertook to obtain the duplicate registration book from the Transport Authority and then to get the tractor transferred in the name of the plaintiff from the Transport Authority. This payment of Rs. 44,100.00 is alleged to have been made in treasury office at Gurgaon in the presence of Shri K. L. Jatrana, Treasury Officer as he was known to both the parties being resident of neighbouring village Bijwasan, Delhi. The plea further is that it was thought proper to get an affidavit of defendant No. 1 attested, acknowledging the receipt of final full payment and transfer of tractor which was got attested from a Oath Commissioner, Gurgaon and the deponent was identified by Shri Wali Mohammad, Advocate and by Shri Behari Lal, Assistant Treasury Officer at the instance of Shri K. L. Jatrana, Treasury Officer. According to the plaintiff the possession of the said tractor was handed over by defendant No. 1 to the plaintiff on 2nd Sept., 1974. The plaintiff is alleged to have been dispossessed of the said tractor because of the theft committed by defendants 2 and 3 along with four others during the night of 30th April, 1977 and 1st May, 1977. A police report was lodged in police post Mahipal Pur, Police Station Mehrauli, New Delhi and the tractor was found abandoned near village Kakrola Dairy, Delhi by the police. Some observations were made in the criminal proceedings that as the ownership and title of the tractor was disputed and doubtful, the matter was of a civil nature. It is for this reason that the plaintiff has instituted the suit claiming the reliefs.

(3.) In the joint written statement by thedefendants, who are appellants herein, the sale of the tractor to the plaintiff is emphatically denied. It is pleaded that the said tractor was purchased by defendant No. 1 in his own name in the year 1970; that the said tractor was the subject-matter of hire- purchase agreement between defendant No. 1 and the New Bank of India Limited, Gurgaon from whom defendant No. 1 had taken a loan of Rs. 28,000.00 and in consideration of this loan the said tractor was hypothecated to the said bank and that it was and is registered in the name of defendant No. 1 in the Transport Authority. There is a complete denial of the payment of Rs. 44,100.00 or any other amount on 2nd Sept., 1974 or the execution of any affidavit. It is pleaded that the affidavit is a piece of forgery perpetrated by the plaintiff by entering into criminal conspiracy with witnesses namely, Shri Jatrana, Shri Wali Mohammad and Shri Behari Lal who have acted in furtherance of their common design to cook up false evidence against defendant No. 1. The defendants claim to be in possession of the said tractor up to the time of the lodging of FIR by the plaintiff. There is however no denial of the proceedings in the Criminal Court.