CHHOGA RAM Vs. BHURA RAM AND ANR.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision petition is directed against the judgment dated October 25, 1990, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Bali, by which the learned Additional Sessions Judge dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner.

(2.) ONE tractor No. RUN 5229 was seized by the Station House Officer, Police Station, Takhatgarh, on June 27,1990, in a case registered Under Section 207 of the Motor Vehicles Act. Bhura Ram and the present petitioner Chhoga Ram, who are brothers, both filed separate applications for the custody of the tractor. The learned Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, Sumerpur, by his order dated July 12,1991, ordered for the custody of the tractor to be given to Bhura Ram on furnishing a 'SUPURDGINAMA' for a sum of Rs. 62,000/ -with a surety in the like amount. The learned Magistrate, while coming to this conclusion, held that the tractor in question was the joint property of both the brother, who are the applicants and by an agreement dated July 14,1989, both the parties agreed that the tractor, costing Rs. 62,000/ - will remain with Bhura Ram and Bhura Ram will make the payment of Rs. 31,000/ - to Chhoga Ram. It was mentioned in the agreement that Bhura Ram had paid Rs. 5000/ - to Chhoga Ram and the custody of the tractor was given to Bhura Ram. The learned trial Court, therefore, came to the conclusion that if an amount of Rs. 26,000/ - is not paid by Bhura Ram to Chhoga Ram than Chhoga Ram can recover that amount by way of filing a civil suit, but the custody of the tractor cannot be given to him and according to the learned Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, Bhura Ram was the person best entitled for the custody of the tractor. Dissatisfied with the order passed by the learned Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, Sumerpur, the petitioner filed an appeal before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bali, who by his order dated October 26, 1990, dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner. It is against this order that the present revision petition has been filed.

(3.) BY an agreement dated July 14, 1989, the tractor in question was handed -over to Bhura Ram and the petitioner accepted Rs. 5000/ - as part payment of the price of the tractor falling in his share. The remaining price was not paid to him by Bhura Ram and according to the petitioner, that amount has not yet been paid. The petitioner can recover that amount by way of filing a civil suit from the non -petitioner Bhura Ram, but the findings arrived - at by the learned lower Court that the Bhura Ram is the person best entitled for the custody of the tractor, does not require any interference as that has been arrived at after discussing the evidence on record. The order, passed by the learned lower Court cannot be said to be, in any way, incorrect, improper or illegal and it does not require any interference.