TARA CHAND BOID Vs. SHIKAM CHAND BHORA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal by the plaintiff is against the confirming decree in a suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendant from interfering, with the plaintiff's possession of a truck.

(2.) Shortly stated, the plaintiff's case is that on 26-9-1973 he purchased the truck bearing, No. A.P.S. 2707 corresponding to the registration No. O.R.K. 3031 of the erstwhile district of Koraput in Orissa for a sum of Rs. 71,267.56 from M/s. Ramadas Motor Transport (Private) Limited, Kakinada in the State of Andhra Pradesh. As he had no sufficient fund, he approached the defendant who is a Financier and Professional Money Lender to advance him loan for the purchase of the said truck and the defendant advance a sum of Rs. 60,000/ - charging Rs.15, 400/- towards interest. The entire amount of Rs. 75,400/- was agreed to be liquidated in thirty monthly instalment of Rs. 2,600/ -, the first instalment commencing from 26-11-1973. The defendant took the signature of the plaintiff in some blank documents and retained them with him. As per the agreement, although the plaintiff paid all the instalments, he received a notice from the defendant on 1-10-1976 calling, upon him to pay a sum of Rs. 12,483 / - towards extra hire charges and on 20-11-1979 one Rashid Khan an employee of the came to Jeypore and threatened to seize the truck. Such action on the part of the defendant led the plaintiff to file the suit for the relief aforestated.

(3.) The defendant denied the ownership of the plaintiff over the truck in question and also the transaction concerning money to be a loan. According to him, he paid Rs. 70,794.34 paise to M/s. Ramdas Motor Transport (Private) Limited on 26-5-1973 for purchase of the truck in question and the truck was given on hire to the plaintiff under the hire purchase agreement on 26-9-1973. The plaintiff possessed the truck as hirer of the defendant as per terms of the hire purchase agreement and not as owner thereof and agreed to pay Rs. 2,600/- per month as hire charges commencing from 26-11-1973. It was further agreed that if the plaintiff would fulfil the conditions as laid down in the hire-purchase agreement, he could exercise the option to become the owner of the said vehicle. The plaintiff also undertook to pay Re. 1/ - per Rs. 1,000/ - per day as extra charge for the delay in payment of monthly instalments and also costs or other charges for recovery of the hire charges. As there was delay in payment of the monthly instalments, the defendant sent a letter to the plaintiff demanding payment of Rs. 12,483/- and in reply the plaintiff having (sic) his liability to pay the said amount, the defendant was entitled to seize the truck as per the hire-purchase agreement. It was also planned that the Courts at Jaypore had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit as per clause (29) of the hire-purchase agreement and that the suit was not property valued.