NARAYANLAL Vs. AMOLAK CHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a plaintiffs' second appeal in a suit for damages for wrongful attachment which was partly decreed by the trial court but on appeal dismissed in toto by the learned Civil Judge, Udaipur.

(2.) IT is common ground between the parties that the defendant Amolakchand had obtained a money decree against plaintiff appellant No. 3 Purshottam and in execution of that decree, he applied for attachment of motor bus No. RJY 293 (the previous number being 706) on the allegation that it was the exclusive property of the latter. This application was made on the 16th September, 1952, and attachment was ordered and effected accordingly under O. 21 R. 30 C. P. C. on the next following date, that is the 17th September, 1952. IT may be mentioned that this bus was lying at the time in the work-shop of P. W. 2 Bhura-lal, a motor mechanic, as the vehicle needed some repairs. Thereupon, the plaintiff appellant Narainlal raised an objection before the executing court on the 21st October, 1952. That objection has not been brought on this record; but it is admitted before me that his case was that he was a co-owner of the bus to the extent of a half share therein. Defendant Amolakchand admitted the force of this objection and consequently the executing court removed the attachment under O. 21 r. 30 and instead imposed a fresh attachment under O. 21 r. 47 C. P. C. to the extent of the half share of Purushottam in the bus in question. This modified attachment was. ordered on the 29th November, 1952, that is, after 72 days of the initial seizure. Consequently the plaintiffs appellants namely Narainlal, the Taxi Motor Association Nathdwara and Purushottam instituted the suit, out of which this appeal arises, for recovery of damages amounting to Rs. 2,000/- on account of the wrongful attachment. IT may be pointed out that the Taxi Motor Association Nathdwara also sued as a plaintiff because as disclosed in the plaint, the bus stood registered in the name of the Taxi Motor Association Nathdwara at the date of the suit, the said association having been registered under the Societies Registration Act (No. VII) of 1941 of the former State of Mewar, some time in 1946. IT was also mentioned in the plaint that this bus stood in the name of plaintiffs Nos. 1 and 3 that is, Narainlal and Purushottam on the records of the Taxi Motor Association, Nathdwara, and that the profit arising out of the running thereof was to go to them in equal shares.