MOHD KUDRAT KHAN Vs. NAGARJUNA FINANCE LIMITED HYDERABAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Introduction: The defendants in O.S. No.257/93 on the file of the Additional Chief Judge-cum-III Member, Tribunal for Disciplinary Proceedings, City Civil Court, Hyderabad (old O.S. No.414/87) aggrieved by the judgment and Decree, dated 22-9-1994, had preferred the present appeal. M/s. Nagarjuna Finance Ltd., Punjagutta, Hyderabad, the respondent in this appeal, is the plaintiff in the said suit. This suit O.S.No.257/93 as tried along with O.S. No.8/94 (old O.S. No.4321/85) and the said suit was filed by the 1st defendant in O.S. No.257/93 for permanent injunction restraining the defendant therein from seizing or confiscating or taking away lorries bearing Nos.ABT-644 and ABT-645 from his custody. Common evidence was recorded in both the suits. P.W.1 and P.W.2 were examined on behalf of M/s. Nagarjuna Finance Ltd., and Exs.A.1 to A.25 were marked. The 1st defendant in O.S. No.257/ 93 was examined as D.W.1 and his father was examined as D.W.2, and Exs.B.l to B.16 were marked. Though in O.S. No.257/ 93 M/s. Nagarjuna Finance Ltd., prayed for delivery of possession of lorries bearing No.ABT-644 and ABT-645 in running condition to plaintiff and in alternative for the value of two vehicles bearing No.ABT- 644 and ABT-645 and for a arrears of hire amount and also damages and future damages and for costs of the suit, the Trial Court on appreciation of evidence, ultimately, answered Issue No.4 in O.S. No.257/93 as hereunder:

(2.) Submissions made by Sri M. Balchand, the Counsel representing the appellants-defendants: Sri Balchand, the learned Counsel representing the appellants-defendants made elaborate submissions on the aspect of the ingredients to be satisfied in Hire Purchase Agreement and also would maintain that this is only a loan transaction. The learned Counsel also explained mortgage, pledge, hypothecation and would contend that at the best, this is only a loan transaction for consolidated amount and the Counsel would maintain that mere nomenclature used in relation to a document cannot be a guiding factor to decide the true nature of the transaction and the real nature of the transaction may have to be looked into and for this purpose, the Court may have to appreciate all the facts and circumstances relating to a particular transaction to decide whether a particular transaction is a Hire Purchase Agreement or loan transaction. The Counsel also would point out that this is a matter concerned with purchase of some vehicles * and several instalments had been paid even according to the respondent-plaintiff, and hence, unless proper accounting is taken, Court cannot arrive at the correct conclusion. The learned Counsel also pointed out that the very fact that the value of the vehicles also had been claimed, which no doubt had been disallowed by the Trial Court would show that it is not a Hire Purchase Agreement, but a loan transaction. A blank document was obtained and Account Books were not produced and accounting was not done and the amounts which should have been given credit had not been given credit to at all. The learned Counsel also contended on the aspect of interest. The Counsel also would maintain that the claim of overdue interest or calculation of interest, at flat rate on the entire amount for the period of 35 months is excessive and penal in nature. The learned Counsel also would contend that in view of the facts and circumstances, the findings recorded by the Trial Court cannot be sustained.

(3.) Submissions made by Sri Purushotham Reddy representing Sri G. Anandam, Counsel for respondent- plaintiff. The learned Courts representing the respondent-plaintiff had taken this Court through the documentary evidence available on record and also the evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.2 and would contend that the Trial Court had taken the oral and documentary evidence available on record into consideration, appreciated the same and ultimately, arrived at the correct conclusion. The learned Counsel also explained the reasons which had been recorded by the Trial Court for not giving deductions or adjustments of the amounts, as claimed by the appellants-defendants. The Counsel also would maintain that the suit filed for perpetual injunction by the 1st defendant was dismissed, but, however, without costs. The learned Counsel also had taken this Court through the findings recorded by the Trial Court and had pointed out that the Trial Court had negatived the relief relating to the claim of damages and no doubt, the same had attained finality. But, as far as the relief, which had been granted by the Trial Court, it is just and reasonable and the same need not be disturbed. The learned Counsel also further would maintain that the documentary evidence would clearly go to show that this is only a Hire Purchase Agreement and even otherwise, after due calculation of the amounts and giving credit to the instalments, which had been paid, the amount had been arrived at and only the suit was decreejd partly, granting alternative relief and hence the same need not be disturbed.