HUSSAN CHAND Vs. GURNAM SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE defendant No. 1 has filed the present appeal against the judgement, decree dated 16.2.2005 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Solan Camp at Nalagarh in Civil Appeal No. 24 -NL/13 of 2004, setting aside judgment and decree dated 7.6.2004 passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Nalagarh in Civil Suit No. 180/1 of 2001 and decreeing the suit of respondent No. 1 -plaintiff for recovery of Rs. 1,40,000 alongwith interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of filing the suit till realization.

(2.) THE facts, as per pleaded case of respondent No. 1 -plaintiff in the plaint, are that respondent No. 1 filed a suit for recovery and mandatory injunction against the appellant and respondent No. 2 regarding truck bearing registration No. HP -12 -2722 (for short, truck) on the grounds that respondent No. 1 was owner in possession of the said truck and he sold the truck to appellant and respondent No. 2 for a sum of Rs. 2,10,000 vide agreement dated 7.6.2000 at Nalagarh. The respondent No. 1 was paid Rs. 70,000 at the time of agreement, the appellant and respondent No. 2 were put in possession of the truck alongwith documents. The appellant and respondent No. 2 undertook to pay the balance amount of sale consideration amounting to Rs. 1,40,000 on or before 31.7.2000 and agreed to get the vehicle transferred in their favour. The only formality, which was required to be done by respondent No. 1, was to obtain no objection certificate (NOC) from the Registering and Licencing Authority Nalagarh. The respondent No. 1 applied for NOC for effecting transfer of vehicle in favour of appellant and respondent No. 2, but appellant and respondent No. 2 did not pay the balance sale consideration nor they took NOC which was lying in the office of Registering and Licencing Authority. The appellant and respondent No. 2 are running the truck. On these facts, the suit was filed.

(3.) THE respondent No. 1 filed the replication to the written statement of appellant and respondent No. 2. In the replication, the respondent No. 1 denied the case of appellant and respondent No. 2 while reiterating his case as set up in the plaint. The learned Civil Judge decreed the suit of respondent No. 1 for mandatory injunction but dismissed the suit for recovery of Rs. 1,40,000 vide judgment and decree dated 7.6.2004. The respondent No. 1 filed an appeal against the decision dated 7.6.2004, which was allowed by the learned Additional District Judge, vide impugned judgment and decree, therefore, defendant No. 1 has come in appeal, which has been admitted on the following substantial question of law: