CHAMPALAL Vs. RAMCHANDER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a second appeal by the plaintiff Champalal against the judgment and decree of the District Judge, Bikaner, dated 21 -1 -1967, affirming the decree of the Civil Judge, Ratangarh, dismissing the suit.

(2.) THE dispute relates to the recovery of a jeep car bearing registration No. RJK 1120 or its price amounting to Rs. 5,000. The defendant -respondent No. 2 Jiwanram is the uncle of the defendant -respondent No. 1 Ramchander. The plaintiff -appellant is a resident of Bhinasar, district Bikaner, whereas the defendant -respondents are the residents of Hanumangarh, district Ganganagar. Both the towns Bhinasar and Hanumangarh, were formerly the parts of the erstwhile State of Bikaner which subsequently merged into the State of Rajasthan. The plaintiff and the defendant Ramchander knew each other very well from the times of the erstwhile State oi Bikaner.

(3.) MR . H.P. Gupta, the learned advocate for the plaintiff -appellant has strongly criticised the judgment of the learned District Judge on the question of the plaintiff's title over the jeep -car RJK 1120. His foremost grievance is that the learned District Judge did not at all refer to very important evidence of Omprakash P. W. 7, a clerk of the transport department, who gave his statement on the basis of the record of the transport department. It is argued that from his statement it stands proved that the registration of the jeep -car RJK 1120 was transferred in the name of the plaintiff on 24 -10 -1956 and thereafter it stood in the name of the plaintiff and was not transferred in the name of any other person. The learned counsel further urges that the person in whose favour the certificate of registration stands would be the owner thereof. I find considerable force in the above contention.