RAJESH KUMAR AGARWAL Vs. YAN TIKHOK AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is directed against the Judgment and Decree dated 10.12.1999 passed by the Deputy Commissioner cum District Judge, Changlang, Arunachal Pradesh in Title Suit No. 14/1996 and Misc. Case (8) No. 170/1996.

(2.) THE appellant, as plaintiff, filed the aforesaid Title Suit praying for the following reliefs.

(3.) THE defendant No. 1 in his written statement denied the allegations made in the plaint. His case is that after he was awarded the agency for retail petroleum outlet, the IOC installed the underground tank, outlet pumps and other structures. The sales counter was constructed by him investing a sum of Rs. 40,000/ -. As per terms and conditions of the licence, the petrol pump was made fully operational. In the meantime, he became a member of the Arunachal Pradesh Public Service Commission and he executed a power of attorney in favour of the defendant No. 2 authorizing him to run the agency on his behalf. On his resignation as a Member of the Arunachal Pradesh Public Service Commission, on 31.3.1994, he asked the defendant No. 2 to handover the petrol pump and to return the power of attorney. Defendant No. 1 could come to know that the plaintiff has been operating the petrol pump without his knowledge. Thereafter, he wrote a letter dated 24.8.1996 to the defendant No. 3 for stopping supply of the petroleum products to defendant No. 2. Accordingly, the supply was stopped. The plaintiff has been operating the agency after obtaining order of stay in Civil Revision No. 299/1996, since disposed of by the High Court. The defendant No. 1 also set up a counter claim for restoration of the possession of the petrol pump and prayed for restoration of the petrol pump. 5. The defendant No. 2 in his written statement submitted that it became difficult to run the agency due to financial hardship and he, along with defendant No. 1, approached the plaintiff for finance. Defendant No. 2 also invested huge amount for which he had taken loan from various persons. In order to repay the loan, the defendant No. 2 took a loan of Rs. 25,00,000/ - from the plaintiff executing a deed of mortgage on 8.1.1996, duly authenticated by the Judicial Magistrate and, in pursuance of the terms and conditions of this mortgage deed, the plaintiff has been carrying on with the business of the petrol pump.