RANDHIR SINGH Vs. GURBUX SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal by the plaintiff is directed against the judgment and decree of the District Judge, Sriganganagar dated September 13, 1967 decreeing the suit of the plaintiff in part for a sum of Rs. 8500/ - only against defendent -respondent No. 1.

(2.) THE facts giving rise to this appeal are these: The plaintiff instituted a suit against Gurbux Singh (defendant No. 1 respondent No. 1), Mukhtiarsingh (Defendant No. 2 respondent No. 2) and Chandra Finance Limited (defendant No. 3 respondeot No. 3) for return of truck No. RJF 1276 or in the alternative for Rs. 27,000/ - consisting of Rs. 8500/ - as the price of truck, Rs. 10,880.30/ - as repair charges and Rs. 8500/ - as compensation, total Rs. 27880.30 p out of which the plaintiff relinquished Rs. 880.30 p. out of the compensation amount.

(3.) THE case of the plaintiff as disclosed in the plaint is that truck Not, PJF 1276 was registered in the name of Mukhtiarsingh defendant No. 2 in the Transport Department; that it initially it was registered in the name off General Finance, Pathankot and subsequently stood transferred in the name of Mukhtiarsingh on October 8, 1960 and that defendants Nos. 1 and 2 offered to sell this truck to him and represented that the truck, though registered in the name of Mukhtiarsirgh defendant No. 2, in fact belonged to Gurbux Singh defendant No. 1. His case further is that he was told that there was no encumbrance on the truck; that in the registration certificate, in the column relating to hire -purchase was blank; that the body of the truck was broken, the tyres and tubes were worn and that the machinery required repairs. The plaintiff alleged that the price of the truck was settled at Rs. 8500/ - and after receiving the price, defendant No. 1 executed an agreement in his favour on July 10, 1963 which has been marked during the trial as Ex. 35 and that defendant No. 1 stipualated that he would get the truck transferred in his name within a month from the date of agreement Ex. 35. It appears from the plaint that after making payment of the price of the truck, delivery was taken of that very time. The plaintiff has further alleged that at the time of purchase as stated above, the truck was not in a fit condition and so, he had spent Rs. 10880.30 p. to make it in a plying condition. According to the plaintiff on January 29, 1964, Mukhtiarsingh defendant No. 2 came to him and took away the truck stating that he would get it transferred in his name in the office off the Collector, Sriganganagar; that the truck was not returned; that he came to know after words that Mukhtiarsingh defendant No. 2 had delivered it to the Official Receiver, Chandra Finance Ltd who had obtained a collusive decree against one Mohindersingh with a direction that the decretal amount would be recovered by the sale of the truck. The case of the plaintiff is that M/s Chandra Finance Ltd. defendant No. 3 had no interest in the truck and as such, it was not entitled to get it auctioned in its decree pasted against Mohindersingh On these grounds, the plaintiff prayed that a decree for return of the truck or in the alternative fur Rs. 37000/ - be passed against all the Defendant No. 1 filed a separate written statement dated February 23, 1965. He pleaded that truck No. RJF 1276 was jointly purchased by him and his relatives Vichitrasingh and Mohindrasingh for Rs. 40,000/ -. Towards its price, a sum of Rs. 10,000/ - was only paid and the balance of Rs. 30,000/ - vas to be paid in instilment. He further stated that Rs. 5000/ - was paid by Mohindersingh. He case further is that the truck was registered in the beginning in the name of Mohinder Singh but subsequently was transferred in the name of Mikhtiarsingh defendant No. 2. He admitted to have put his thumb impression on the agreement Ex. 35 dated July 10. 1963 but alleged that he being an illiterate roan, was not aware of its contents. According to defendant No. 1, Mukhtiarsingh hid called him on the relevant date from his village and told him that he was selling the truck for Rs. 8500/ - half of the cost of which would be given to him. Defendant No. 1 agreed to this proposal of Mukhtiarsingh defendant No. 2 and also received half of the amount of Rs. 8300/ -. It is, therefore, clear from these averments that his defence is that he had neither received the entire amount paid by the plaintiff nor had he agreed to gat the trunk transferred in the name of the plaintiff within a month of the execution of the agreement Ex. 35. In this way, he denied his liability.