MALLAYYAN CHETTIAR Vs. KRISHNA PILLAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE plaintiff is the appellant. THE sole respondent is the 2nd defendant, and he had not entered appearance in spite of personal service of notice of appeal on him. THE 1st defendant in the case owed money to the plaintiff and on settlement of accounts it was found that Rs. 3,000 was due to the plaintiff on 12. 4. 1122. For that amount the 1st defendant executed a security bond giving the 1st defendant's car as security for the loan. That car was a Plymouth motor car, 30 horse power, 1936 Model, Sedan body, then bearing registration No. M. D. R. 344, and subsequently registered in Travancore as t. R. V. 4657. THE security bond is Ext. B. It was mentioned there that the registration certificate of the car had been sent to Madras for effecting change of ownership in favour of the 1st defendant and that the same would be handed over to the plaintiff on receipt. THE plaintiff stated that he understood that the 1st defendant was attempting to transfer the car benami in the name of the 2nd defendant with a view to defeat and delay the plaintiff, that the 2nd defendant was at all relevant times fully aware of the security bond executed by the first defendant to him, and that he was to get a decree against the 1st defendant and the car for realisation of the amount.

(2.) THE 1st defendant remained ex-parte. THE 2nd defendant contended that he had no knowledge about the security bond Ext. B in favour of the plaintiff or about the transaction between the plaintiff and the 1st defendant, that he came to know about the security bond only after the suit, that the security bond was invalid and inoperative as against the car, that he had purchased the car from the 1st defendant bona fide by paying Rs. 3,300 as its value on 26. 7. 1122, that the registration certificate was handed over to him on the same day, that the transfer was duly recognised by the inspector-General of Police under the Motor Vehicles Act, that the after he purchased the car he had changed several parts spending about Rs. 2,000 from his own pocket and that the plaintiff was not entitled to any relief prayed for in the plaint as against the car.

(3.) IN the result we modify the decree of the lower court and give the plaintiff a decree for the amount allowed by the lower court against the car scheduled in the plaint. The plaintiff will get the costs of this appeal from the 2nd defendant. Allowed.