VIMALKUMAR Vs. ABHISHEK SAXENA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this first appeal defendant has challenged the judgment and decree dated 15/3/2000 passed by trial court in CS No. 52A/1997.

(2.) The respondent plaintiff had filed the suit for recovery of sum of Rs. 2,01,525/- with the plea that appellant was owner of mini bus No. MP 13-C-3203 and its registered owner in the RTO was Pratap Singh. The appellant after paying the consideration amount had purchased the mini bus from its registered owner Pratap Singh and only his name was not transferred in the RTO. On the basis of this information, the respondent had entered into the sale agreement dated 3/3/1997 with the appellant for purchase of mini bus for consideration of Rs. 3,70,000/- out of which appellant had paid Rs. 20,000/- at the time of agreement and possession of bus was given to respondent. Thereafter on the basis of temporary permit in the name of Pratap Singh respondent was running the bus at his own expense and he had paid Rs. 50,000 on 16/3/97, Rs. 10,000/- on 28/3/1997; on 31/3/1997 Rs. 40,000 and 24/4/1997 again Rs. 20,000. Thus he had paid Rs. 1,40,000/-, but as per the agreement appellant had not taken any steps on 3/4/1997 for transferring the bus in his name and nor the bus was transferred in the RTO record in the name of respondent. On 4/5/1997 Pt. Kamal Kishoreji Nagar of Semali Ashram had seized the bus on the ground that Pratap Singh had got the bus financed from the bank and as guarantee Pt. Kamal Kishore had deposited the FD of Rs. 75,000/- in the bank, but appellant had not repaid the bank dues and in this regard the report was made in the police on 5/9/97. It was further pleaded that in the agreement the appellant had not informed the respondent about the financing of the mini bus and deposit of FD by Pt. Kamal Kishore and since the transfer was not done till 5/4/97 in the RTO office, hence the agreement had come to an end and the respondent was entitled to receive back the amount paid under the agreement for which the notice dated 3/9/97 was given but no action was taken. Hence a decree of Rs. 2,01,525/- was prayed.

(3.) The appellant by filing the written statement had taken the plea that no condition of agreement was violated by him and the guarantor was liable towards the loan and he had a right to seize the vehicle and after seizure the bus has been given in custody of the financer Bank of India which is lying there and therefore, the respondent was not liable to receive any amount.