YADAV RAM Vs. LAMAN SINGH BISHT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is directed against the judgment dated 13-11-1963 of the IInd Addl. Civil Judge, Nainital, decreeing the suit of the plaintiff for the return of Truck No. U.S.N. 1117 and for recovery of damages. The defendant was further directed to execute a deed of reconveyance in favour of the plaintiff in respect of the truck mentioned above, failing which the plaintiff was entitled to recovery of a sum of Rs. 18,000/- from the defendant as price of the truck.

(2.) THE plaintiff' s case, as laid in the plaint is that he purchased Truck No. U.S.N. 1117 in March, 1959 and as he did not have any truck work to execute the truck was standing idle. Yadav Ram the defendant approached the plaintiff for taking the truck on hire. Consequently the plaintiff gave the truck to the said defendant on June 8, 1959 on hire for a period ending December 31, 1959. THE defendant agreed to pay Rs. 1000/- per month of hire. THE plaintiff further alleged that in order to enable Yadav Ram to obtain a permit in his name from the Regional Transport Authority, the plaintiff executed a receipt showing transfer of the truck to the defendant in lieu of Rs. 18,000/-. THE receipt executed was fictitious and unreal, THE defendant thereafter made an application to the R. T. A. for the permit for the aforesaid truck on the basis of the receipt obtained by him from the plaintiff. On the same day, simultaneous to the execution of the receipt, an agreement was executed by Yadav Ram whereby he undertook to return the truck to the plaintiff in the beginning of January, 1960 without receiving any money. THE plaintiff stated that as the defendant neither paid the hire nor returned the truck to the plaintiff after expiry of December, 1959, the plaintiff got suspicious. He thereafter sent a notice dated 5th of Jan. 1960 to the defendant to return the truck. THE defendant gave a false and incorrect reply to the said notice and refused to hand over the truck. Consequently, the plaintiff filed the suit for the return of the truck and, in the alternative, for the recovery of Rs. 32,000/- as its price. THE plaintiff also claimed damages for the period from 1st of Jan. 1960 upto the date of delivery of the truck. A sum of Rs. 6,000/- was claimed by him as hire for the period 8th of June, 1959 to 31st Dec. 1959.

(3.) WE have heard the learned counsel for the parties at some length and have gone through the judgment of the trial court. WE have also been taken through the entire evidence. WE are constrained to observe that the court below has not made a correct approach to the facts of the present case and has proceeded mostly on conjectures and speculations and has also committed errors of record in arriving at some of the important findings.