(1.) The plaintiff/Lakhvir Singh, now appellant had earlier filed against Mohinder Singh/defendant, now respondent a suit for issuance of mandatory injunction directing the defendant to put the plaintiff in possession of one tractor bearing registration No.PB03C-5409 make Mohindra DI-265. The claim is based on the contention that plaintiff is registered owner of this tractor and along with Joga Singh and Pargat Singh has started business of selling and buying of second hand tractors and that these persons had taken the tractor on some pretext and, thereafter, refused to return back the same and now it transpired that they had sold it to Mohinder Singh-defendant and, hence, the suit in question. The defendant in his stand taken in written statement took up the plea denying that the ownership of the tractor vests with the plaintiff and claimed that he has purchased the tractor from the plaintiff and his partner Joga Singh for sum of Rs.1,90,000/- and sale letter was also issued in this regard after receiving Rs.10,000/- and the balance amount was to be paid on 26.10.2005 which was received by these persons and also issued receipt and necessary documents to this effect and denied the averments claiming that he had called upon the plaintiff side to get the vehicle transferred in his name upon receipt of balance consideration but he refused to do so. From the pleading of the parties the trial Court framed the following issues:-
(2.) The plaintiff examined himself as PW1 and defendant has examined himself as DW1 leading to the judgment of trial Court dated 7.4.2012, whereby, suit of the plaintiff was dismissed. Upon appeal, the Court of learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fazilka too dismissed the appeal upholding the findings of the trial Court and that is how the parties are before this Court.
(3.) Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records of the case. Appreciating the submissions of the two sides, though the plaintiff had filed suit for mandatory injunction for the possession of tractor in question but as is in the pleadings and the rival stand of the two sides it is a case where ownership of the tractor is in dispute and being a motor vehicle by virtue of Section 21 of Motor Vehicle Act 1988 (in short, 'the Act') falls within the category of 'light motor vehicle' and the term owner is defined in Section 2(30) of the Act which is reproduced as below to lay emphasis:-