AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
The appellant has assailed legality of judgment passed by Additional District Judge, Rajgarh Camp Laxmangarh, District Alwar in Civil Suit No.170/95 (140/92), whereby suit of the plaintiff/respondent Johari Lal is decreed.
In brief, the factual matrix of the case hinges upon ownership and possession of a tractor with trolley bearing registration No.RJA 7061, which stands in registered name of plaintiff/respondent Johari Lal under a hypothecation with State Bank of India, Kherli towards borrowings, which was allegedly taken away by defendant/appellant Ram Charan against which an F.I.R No.26/91 was also lodged on 06/02/1991 and subsequently the plaintiff/respondent Johari Lal filed this suit seeking declaration with respect to the ownership of the said tractor, while rebutting pleadings, defendant denied claim contending that defendant/appellant Ramcharan was owner in possession of the said tractor with trolley after partition and further prayed for dismissal of the suit of the plaintiff-respondent.
Learned trial Court after going through the pleadings of both the sides framed nine following issues :- "VERNACULAR MATTER OMITTED"
Learned counsel for the appellant has contended that trial Court has fallen in error in passing impugned judgment, in fact, said tractor was purchased from the funds of Joint Hindu Family, so the title of the tractor cannot be seen in isolation, and appellant/defendant got it in partition despite trial Court did not appreciate evidence correctly and has wrongly passed the impugned judgment, which is liable to be set aside after allowing the appeal.
Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent/plaintiff has argued that the trial Court has not committed any error in passing the impugned judgment because said tractor was purchased by respondent/plaintiff and it was duly entered in his name as a registered owner with RTO, all the expenditure, bills and contingent repair were borne by the plaintiff/respondent. Appellant side wrongly took away tractor of the respondent/plaintiff, so a F.I.R was also lodged for the same and the Court dealing with the release of said tractor has also handed over the said tractor in the Supardgi of plaintiff/respondent. There is no flaw at all in the findings of learned Trial Court, which are liable to be upheld and appeal be dismissed.
Heard submissions of both the sides, examined the impugned judgment and perused the record.
Examination of testimony shows that plaintiff has succeeded in establishing its case before the trial Court, being registered owner and actual buyer of the said tractor. Johari Lal PW.1 has specifically said that the said tractor was purchased by him under bank borrowings, which too was paid by him and he has said that : "VERNACULAR MATTER OMITTED"
Nothing causing infirmity to the testimony has emerged from his cross-examination.
PW.2 Inder son of Johari has also said that tractor is Zeeter, which was purchased by his father 20 to 21 years back, at that time, Ram Charan was residing at Kadwari and tractor was purchased through loan, which was paid by his father Johari.
DW.1Ramcharan though has said that the tractor was purchased collectively, but he has also said that it does not stand registered in his name and he did not ask for papers because they were never necessitated neither he asked his father to get the ownership transferred in his name nor submitted any such application before RTO for transfer of his name, he has also said that such transfers are effected on the basis of sale letter, which was not with him. He has also said that a partition had taken place in their family and through that partition he had been given tractor and trolley, said partition is said to be "oral", in this regard, testimony of DW2 Ramoti and DW.3 Jasya are important because both have said that the said partition was effected through "writing" and Ramoti has said that Johari and Ramcharan had signed on that, which makes the factum of said partition suspicious because Johari says it was oral whereas his family member witnesses avers that it was documented.
Entire documentary testimony relating to purchase letter of the said tractor, its registration with RTO and papers relating to insurance stands in the name of Johari, said tractor was released on 14/03/1991 in connection with F.I.R No.26/91 PS Khedli by the Court of JM First Class, Laxmangarh in favour of Johari, registered owner of the tractor with the observation :- "VERNACULAR MATTER OMITTED"
and this order was subsequently modified by learned High Court in S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No.438/1991 with the observation :
"VERNACULAR MATTER OMITTED"
Appellant/Defendant Ramcharan has not got any decree with respect to alleged partition and learned trial Court, while deciding the suit under appeal has adjudicated issue number four against defendant because defendant has failed to establish factum of partition.
Upon considering entire evidence and in view of discussions aforesaid, there appears no infirmity in the findings of learned trial Court. Indisputably the ownership and sale-letter of the said tractor is in the name of Johari Lal, who has stated that tractor was purchased by him under bank loan, which too was paid by him.
Hence, this Court finds no reason to interfere with the conclusion and findings of learned trial Court.
For the reasons aforesaid, appeal is liable to be dismissed, hence, is hereby dismissed.
Cost easy.