DALPAT SINGH Vs. OM PRAKASH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a plaintiffs' appeal against the order of the learned District Judge. Jodhpur, dated 25 -9 -81 dismissing his application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 C.P.C. read with Section 151 C.P.C. The facts giving rise to this appeal briefly stated are that the plaintiffs Dalpatsingh and Babulal filed a suit for declaration that the tractor RSG 2276 and trolley RRQ 2386 are of their ownership and possession. They also prayed that a permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the plaintiffs' possession over the said tractor and trolley or to dispossess them. Along with the plaint, the plaintiffs also moved an application for temporary injunction. The case of the plaintiffs is that the plaintiffs had purchased the tractor and trolley from M/s Gulabchand Govindram and the registration of these vehicles was affected in the names of the plaintiffs. They were in possession of these vehicles and the defendants Om Prakash and Kunaram took the tractor and the trolley from the plaintiffs on loan for taking out their machine, which had fallen in to the well, a few days before 28 -2 -80. The vehicles were not returned by the defendants and, therefore, the plaintiffs called upon them to do so but they refused to do so on 27 -2 -10. Thereupon, the plaintiffs instituted proceedings Under Section 406 IPC against the defendants before the Judicial Magistrate No. 2, Jodhpur, on 28 -2 -80. During the course of these proceedings, the tractor and trolly were surrendered by the defendants before the police and they were handed over to the plaintiffs on 'Supurdgnama' but by an order of this Court dated 22 -4 -81, the vehicles were ordered to be handed over to the defendants on 'Supuidginama'. The matter was taken to the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Meanwhile, the present suit for declaration and permanent injunction was filed and, therefore, the Hon'ble Supreme Court by its order dated 21 -9 -81 directed that the tractor and trolley would remain in possession of the plaintiff till some order in this respect is passed in the suit. The plaintiffs apprehended that the defendants may dispossess them from the aforesaid vehicles and, therefore they wanted this temporary injunction. The case of the defendants, on the other hand, was that the tractor originally belonged to Chand Ratan and Chand Ratan had sold the same to them for the Tractors(Distribution and Sale Control)Order, 1971, Chandratan could not have executed a sale deed in favour of the defendants and, therefore, for a sum of Rs. 47,500/ -. However, in view of the provisions of the Tractors (Distribution and Sale Control) Order, 1971 Chand Ratan could have executed a sale deed in favour of the defendants and therefore he he handed over a blank sale letter to the defendants. The defendants had obtained a loan of Rs. 50,000/ - from Gulab Chand Govind Ram and had handed over the documents relating to the tractor as also the trolley, which belonged to them, to Gulab Chand Govind Ram. It appears, according to the defendants that the plaintiffs in collusion with Gulab Chand Govind Ram got the registration of these vehicles transferred in the names of the plaintiffs. It was also their case that they had got Gulab Chand Govind Ram paid Rs. 31, 000/ - in cash from the plaintiffs and had also got an agreement executed by the plaintiffs in their favour on 30 -6 -79. They denied that the plaintiffs were ever in possession of these vehicles. They asserted that they had been throughout in possession of these vehicfes and had plied them on hire etc. for which they have produced the receipts and certificates. They, therefore, urged that the plaintiffs were into entitled to any temporary injunction specially in view of the orders passed by this Court in the criminal proceedings. After taking into consideration the rival contentions and the documents produced by the parties, the learned District Judge came to the conclusion that although the registration of the tractor and trolley in question were in the names of the plaintiffs, they could not be deemed to be the owners and in possession thereof due to certain circumstances, which he has pointed out in his order. He, accordingly, found that there was no prima facie case in favour of the plaintiffs. He was also of the opinion that as the plaintiffs had obtained the possession of the tractor and trolley by recourse to improper criminal proceedings Under Section 406 I.P.C., the balance of convenience was also not in favour of the plaintiffs. However, he was of the opinion that the fact of irreparable injury appeared to be in favour of the plaintiffs because when the registration of these vehicles stand in their names, they may be held liable for breach of the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act etc. In view of these findings, be refused the plaintiffs' prayer for grant of temporary injunction by his order dated 25 -9 -81. The plaintiffs have, therefore, come up in this appeal.

(2.) I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record.

(3.) IT may at once be stated that the learned District Judge has started with the presumption, and, in my opinion, rightly that a person in whose favour the registration of a motor vehicle stands should ordinarily be presumed to be its owner unless otherwise proved or someone else is able to establish a better title. The learned counsel for both the parties referred to certain authorities on this aspect of the matter but I do not refer to them because the ratio decendi of all these authorities is undoubtedly as stated by the learned District Judge. The question which, therefore, immediately falls for determination is whether this presumption can be said to have been rebutted in the present case. The learned District Judge has of course found that this presumption appears to have been rebutted and, therefore, we have to consider whether this finding of the learned District Judge is proper and in accordance with law.