VEMPALA APPA RAO Vs. MANIKONDA SOMESWARA RAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Plaintiff is the appellant. He purchased a Hindustan Ambassador Car bearing Registration No. APK. 9685, for a consideration of Rs. 12,350/- from the defendant in the last week of December, 1967. He paid the full consideration to the defendant. According to the plaintiff, defendant assured him about his absolute and exclusive title to the said Car. The Registration Certificate in respect of the said Car was also transferred in favour of the plaintiff. While so, the Delhi police seized the said Car from the plaintiff's possession on 9-6-1968 on the ground that it was stolen property required in Crime No. 2740/65 (P.S. Vinaya Nagar, Delhi), registered under section 379, I.P.C. The Car was produced in the first instance, before the Addl. J F.C M. Gudivada and, on the application of the plaintiff the learned Magistrate directed the return of the said car to the plaintiff on his furnishing security therefor and on an undertaking that he shall produce the same before the court as and when called upon to do so. The car was, however, directed to be produced, by the said Magistrate on 14-8-1968 and on the plaintiff complying with such direction, the car was delivered to Delhi Police on 20 8-1968. The car was then taken to Delhi and produced before the appropriate Criminal Court there. Plaintiff approached the Delhi couit and applied for return of the vehicle on the ground that he is a bonafide purchaser for value, but his petition was dismissed, and a revision filed against the sard order also proved unsuccessful. According to the plaintiff he has been keeping the defendant informed of the said proceedings. When the plaintiff ultimately lost the car, the same having been found to be stolen property, he issued a notice to the defendant on 31 3-1971 calling upon him to make good the loss sustained by him. On refusal of the defendant, plaintiff filed the present suit, for recovery of the consideration paid by him to the defendant, as well as for expenses incurred by him towards the several proceedings taken by him for obtaining the release of the said Car.

(2.) Defendant filed a written statement, contending that he himself had purchased the said Car, bonafide, from one Pragada Appalaswamy of Gudivada for a consideration of Rs.14,000/- on 27-12-1975 and that, after using it for about two years, he sold the Car to the plaintiff in a bonafide belief that he was the true owner thereof and that, there was no defect in his title to the said Car. He denied that the said Car was stolen property, and stated that it was for the plaintiff to have established before the appropriate court that he is a bona fide purchaser for value and that, in the circumstances, he is not liable for the suit amount.

(3.) On the above pleadings, the trial court framed the following four issues: