HANUMAN Vs. JAI PARKASH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has been filed by the appellant arrayed as defendant No. 1 in the suit for recovery filed by the plaintiff arrayed as respondent No. 1 in the present appeal. Appellant - defendant No. 1 is aggrieved of judgment and decree dtd. 3/3/2015 passed by the learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Bhiwani as well as judgment and decree dtd. 26/2/2019 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Bhiwani.

(2.) Brief facts necessary for adjudication of the case are that the plaintiff purchased a Scorpio vehicle on 23/5/2009 from the appellant. It is pleaded that defendants No. 2 to 4 were the middle men, who facilitated the sale/purchase and Rs.5,000.00 was given to them as commission by the plaintiff. It is pleaded that defendants No. 2 to 4 assured the plaintiff that Scorpio vehicle is in good condition and untainted. It is further pleaded that defendant No. 5, who was the then Secretary of RTO office also assured the plaintiff about the ownership of defendant No. 1. It is alleged that registration certificate ('RC' - for short) of the vehicle was transferred in his name but thereafter Rajasthan police took away the vehicle as well as the related documents from him. Later, the plaintiff came to know that the defendants in conspiracy with each other, played fraud upon him and manipulated the RC of one tractor registered at Panipat while wrongly representing to him that the RC is of the vehicle in question. Scorpio vehicle, it is pleaded, was of a different registration number and was required in a criminal case at Rajasthan. The plaintiff suffered a loss of Rs.4.00 lakhs. Hence, the suit was filed.

(3.) Defendants contested the suit while denying all the averments in the plaint. In his separate written statement, defendant No. 1 (present appellant) specifically pleaded that defendant No. 1, himself purchased the said vehicle from one Manoj through defendants No. 2 to 4 and thereafter sold the vehicle in question to the plaintiff. It is stated that he does not know about any defect in the title of the vehicle and sold the same in the same position as purchased by him from Manoj. Defendants No. 2 to 4 (respondents No. 2 to 5 in this appeal) in their written statement denied to have facilitated any sale or purchase of the vehicle in question. Dismissal of the suit was prayed for.