TILAK RAJ SHARMA Vs. AMIR CHAND SAINI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE plaintiff -respondent filed the instant suit seeking declaration to the effect that he is co -owner of tractor in question along with the defendant in equal share and the defendant has got no right to use it individually, with consequential relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendant from using the said tractor without his consent and also from alienating or disposing of the said tractor and for rendition of accounts for the period 1.6.1995 up to date. In the suit, it was averred that tractor in question was purchased by the plaintiff and the defendant jointly vide receipt dated 14.10.1994. Even the accessories of the tractor were purchased jointly by the parties after spending an amount of Rs. 1 lakh. It was settled at the time of purchase that both the parties will utilise the tractor jointly with the consent of each other and they continued acting on the agreed principles up to 31.5.1995. Thereafter, the defendant kept the tractor in his custody and neither sent it to the plaintiff nor the defendant rendered the accounts. It was further averred by the plaintiff that the defendant was using the tractor for hire purpose and getting the whole income without paying any share to him since 1.6.1995. The said act of the defendant was illegal, null and void and against the agreed terms and conditions. He requested the defendant not to use the tractor individually and to render the accounts and further to pay his share but the defendant refused to admit the claim of the plaintiff and also threatened to alienate the tractor without his consent. Hence, necessity arose to file the present suit.

(2.) UPON notice, the defendant filed written statement raising various preliminary objections. It was denied that the tractor in question was purchased by the plaintiff and defendant jointly. It was further pleaded that the tractor was purchased by the defendant entirely with his own funds. It was further pleaded that one Smt. Rattan Devi had also contributed a sum of Rs. 22,000/ - in the price of the tractor and the remaining amount was contributed by him alone. It was further pleaded that the plaintiff has not contributed any amount towards the purchase price of the said tractor. The accessories were purchased by the defendant and Rattan Devi jointly. It was further pleaded that a cheque of Rs. 69,000/ - dated 4.10.1994 was issued by Smt. Agya Sharma, his wife, favouring the plaintiff drawn on Punjab National Bank, Behrampur and a cheque of Rs. 46,000/ - dated 4.10.1994 was issued by him in favour of the plaintiff and thus, the amount was deposited in his account only to ensure that plaintiff will have interest in the work for plying the tractor. It was further pleaded that after plying the tractor for two months, the plaintiff failed to deposit any amount in his account and misappropriated the funds and had sold Suhaga (the agricultural equipment of the tractor). The plaintiff executed an agreement dated 16.11.1994 vide which he has admitted that he has not contributed any amount in the said tractor and it was further agreed that if he failed to contribute his share of 45% of the said amount of the purchase of tractor then he would not have any right, title or interest in the said tractor. It was further pleaded that the tractor was in the custody of the defendant who was the sole owner. The defendant further pleaded that the plaintiff had failed to contribute his share of 45% as per agreement dated 16.11.1994 and also failed to furnish any account. The name of the plaintiff was inserted in the registration certificate only on the condition that he would contribute his share within one or two months but the plaintiff had committed breach of the terms of the said agreement dated 16.11.1994 and as such he was not entitled to any relief.

(3.) AGGRIEVED from the aforesaid judgment and decree of the trial Court, the defendant filed an appeal before the Lower Appellate Court which was dismissed vide impugned judgment and decree dated 17.8.2012. While dismissing the appeal, the Lower Appellate Court observed as under: