TEA BOARD Vs. HAROOCHARAI TEA ESTATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The suit was for declaration of ownership and alternatively for a money decree. The defendants did not appear at the hearing of the suit. The plaintiff adduced evidence through one witness and produced various documents. The plaintiff gave machineries to the defendants on hire purchase. The first defendant was a partnership firm of which the second to the fifth defendants were partners. The plaintiff and the first defendant entered into an agreement dated June 8, 1988 being Exhibit 'D'. By such agreement the plaintiff agreed to supply on hire purchase the machinery and equipment described in the first Schedule to such agreement. The agreement provided that the first defendant would pay earnest money to the plaintiff. The first defendant would also pay instalments as mentioned in the agreement.

(2.) In consideration of the plaintiff agreeing to grant such hire purchase facilities the second to the fifth defendants executed supplementary hire purchase agreements.

(3.) Pursuant to in terms of the hire purchase agreement the plaintiff purchased the machineries and equipments and delivered the same to the tea estate of the first defendant at Assam. The first defendant, however, failed, neglected and made defaults in making payment of the instalments under the hire purchase agreement. The plaintiff called upon the defendants to pay. The plaintiff issued letters in that regard. The defendants not paying, the plaintiff caused their Advocates to issue a demand notice to the defendants. In spite of due receipt of such letters the defendants failed, neglected and refused to pay the plaintiff. The plaintiff, therefore, filed the instant suit and prayed for recovery of the amount outstanding as well as a declaration as prayed for.