V K ELAYALWAR Vs. N GOVINDARAJULU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an unfortunate case in which the learubordinate Judge, Salem, has exalted form over substaesulting in failureustice. After having found that Exs. A-1 and A-2, which formed tin plank of plaintiff's case, are true and that the suit is not d by limitation, the learned Subordi Judge has denied reliefs to the plaintif ellant on technical grounds pe ing to the court-fee payable on the nt and the form of the prayers by the plaintiff.

(2.) THE parties would be referred to by thenks to the suit. THE plaintiff was owning a fleet of buses anning the business of stage carriage transport. He about 18 or 19 buses. As there were talks of a legislation imposing a ceiling on the number of stage carriage permits owned by an individual, in the later part of 1970, the plaintiff entered into an agreement with the first defendant on 11-12-1970 under Ex. A-1 for sale of five buses described in Schedule ?A? to the plaint along with the route permits. THE apparent tenor of the document was that the routes and buses had been transferred to the first defendant by the plaintiff and applications should be made before the Regional Transport Authority for getting the necessary permission for transfer of permits. THE agreement also read that till the application for transfer was ordered by the Authority, the plaintiff should pay the necessary taxes and collect the same from the first defendant on production of vouchers thereafter. THE document also provided that the first defendant was responsible thereafter for payment of the instalments due under the hire purchase agreements relating to the buses and if there was any necessity for replacement of any bus, it should be done by the plaintiff and the first defendant should undertake the debt which may be incurred for purchasing a new bus. THE debts borrowed by the plaintiff for the purpose of the buses and the permits were set put in Schedule ?B? to the agreement and the first defendant was to discharge the same. THE agreement contained a provision that if there was any default on the part of the first defendant in discharging the debts and if the plaintiff was made to pay the debts, he could have a Receiver appointed for taking over the buses and discharging the debts. THE last clause in the agreement provided that all the conditions therein were subject to the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act and the order of the Authority on the application for transfer of permit. According to the agreement, the total amount due under the hire purchase agreements as on that date Was Rs. 66,313/- and the total amount due under five promissory notes executed by the plaintiff was Rs. 52,458/-.

(3.) DURING the pendency of the Writ Petition and the appeals before the Tribunal, the first defendant executed a letter dated 31-1-1972 in favour of the plaintiff. The letter, after referring to the pendency of the proceedings referred to above, stated that the first defendant would pay the price of the buses and the permits as may be ascertained after the passing or an order of transfer of permits and take delivery after salement. The letter also stated that no amount of sale price had been paid by the first defendant to the plaintiff till then. It should be mentioned here that while the first defendant admits his signature in the said letter, contends that the document has been fabricated with the help of blank papers which had been signed by him earlier in connection with another business run by him and the plaintiff.