GHATMAL CHAMPALAL Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is preferred against the judgment and decree of the learned Subordinate Judge, Rajahmundry, dismissing the suit, O.S. No. 119 of 1972 filed by the appellant-plaintiff for a declaration that he was the owner of the plaint schedule watches and for recovery of possession of the same or in the alternative for a decree for a sum Rs. 23,397.67 P. being the value of the said watches together with interest thereon.

(2.) The relevant facts giving rise to the appeal are as follows : The plaintiff is a registered firm carrying on business at Rajahmundry in fancy goods etc. On 21-10-1964, D.W. 1, the Inspector of Central Excise, along with two other Inspectors, found a parcel lying in the office of the Savani Transport Company at Rajahmundry. The said parcel was received from Bombay covered by a lorry receipt, Ex. A-15, the name of the consignee being shown as "M/s. G.C." As the Central Excise authorities found the lorry receipt to be suspicious, the parcel was got opened before mediators. The said parcel contained, in addition to account books, a tin box covered with straw. On opening the tin box, 195 wrist watches (wrist watches) of foreign origin were found. A mediator report, Ex. B-4 was drawn up and an inventory, Ex. B-5, was taken and the watches were seized by D.W. 1. On information that the consignees name mentioned as "M/s. G.C." refers to one Ghatmal Champalal, the appellant-plaintiff, D.W. 1 and his staff conducted searches at the shop and residence of the plaintiff. But the plaintiff was found missing. After three days, the proprietor of the plaintiff-firm, Ghatmal (P.W. 2) appeared before the Central Excise authorities on summons being issued to him. On at date i.e. 24-10-1964, a statement (Ex. B-1) given by P.W. 2 was recorded by D.W. 2, a resident of Rajahmundry. In Ex. B-1, P.W. 2 stated that he was carrying on business in fancy goods at Rajahmundry in the name of "Ghatmal Champalal", Champalal being his younger brother. His mother is also a shareholder. He stated that he was carrying on business in all kinds of fancy goods viz., pens, watches, steel utensils etc., for which they obtained a licence and that they used to purchase the aforesaid goods from traders at Madras, Bombay and Calcutta. He further stated that

(3.) With regard to the watches seized, he stated as follows :-