Appeardismissedholding suitfordeliveryoflorrybarredbylimitationfiled12yearsaftercauseofactionalsofailedtoproveownershipwithoutregisteredcertificate.
No order as to costs.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE S.V. BHATT
A.S.No.2654 of 1999
JUDGMENT: (Per LNR,J)
The sole plaintiff in O.S.No.246 of 1994, on the file of the
III-Additional Senior Civil Judge, Visakhapatnam, is the appellant. He filed the suit against the respondents for delivery of a lorry bearing registration No. ATV 342 or payment of its value estimated at Rs.2,00,000/- with interest @ 18 % per annum.
The plaintiff pleaded that he purchased the lorry by obtaining loan from the A.P. State Financial Corporation in the year 1981 for Rs.1,93,000/-. According to him, defendants 3 to 6, who are related to each other, constituted a firm with the first defendant as the Managing Partner and they wanted the vehicle in the form of chassis. It was further pleaded that the defendants agreed to pay the installments
of the loan borrowed by the plaintiff with the income derived from the vehicle and to return the vehicle soon after clearance of the loan. He is said to have signed on certain blank papers and the
first defendant started claiming ownership rights over the vehicle. The A.P. State Financial Corporation is said to have served notice upon the appellant on 24.11.1984 stating that a sum of Rs.14,05,000/- is due.
The first defendant filed written statement stating that he has nothing to do with the vehicle and opposed the suit claim. In addition to that, a counter claim was made for a sum of Rs.16,74,000/- on the ground that in case the plaintiff insists on the re-delivery of lorry, he is under obligation to pay the amount spent on the vehicle. An objection was also raised as to limitation.
Through its judgment dated 15.07.1999, the trial Court dismissed the suit mainly on the ground of limitation. Hence, this appeal.
Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for the respondents.
The suit was filed for the relief of delivery of vehicle or in the alterative for payment of its value. There was serious disagreement between the parties as to the terms of arrangement that existed between them.
The trial Court framed the following issues in the suit as well as the counter claim:
ISSUES IN THE SUIT:
1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the delivery of the lorry bearing No.ATV 342?
2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the damages as prayed for?
3. Whether the suit claim is in time?
4. Whether the court fee paid is not correct?
5. To what relief?
ISSUES IN THE COUNTER CLAIM
i) Whether the claimant is entitled for a sum of Rs.16,74,551-80 Ps by way of a counter claim?
ii) Whether the counter claim is barred by limitation?
iii) Whether the counter claim is hit under Order 2 Rule 2? iv) Whether the claimant is entitled for the set off?
On behalf of appellant, P.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.A-1 to A-7 were filed. On behalf of respondents, D.Ws.1 to 4 were examined and Exs.B-1 to B-8 were filed.
The points that arise for consideration before us are:
The plaintiff intended to purchase a vehicle and accordingly applied to M/s Tata Motors. A chassis of the vehicle of model
1210 S.E 42 was allotted to him in the year 1981 for a sum of Rs.1,93,000/-. It is stated that the plaintiff obtained loan from the A.P. State Financial Corporation. The pleadings, however, are not clear about this. The undisputed fact is that he gave the vehicle to the first defendant with the specific understanding that the loan installments shall be paid to the first defendant and that the plaintiff shall be entitled for royalty/lease at Rs.1,000/- per month. Though it is pleaded that there is an understanding to the effect that the vehicle shall be re-delivered after the clearance of the loan, no document is placed in support of that plea. Be that as it may, if the plaintiff parted with the possession of the vehicle in the year 1981, he was required to take steps within the stipulated time for recovery thereof. The suit was filed about 12 years thereafter. He made an averment in the plaint to the effect that he put his signature on the non-
judicial stamps and other papers. In the paragraph pertaining to cause of action, the appellant clearly stated that the cause of action arose in the year 1985. By any standard, filing of the suit nine years thereafter cannot be countenanced and it is clearly barred by limitation.
Coming to point No.2, it is evident that neither the appellant nor the respondents have filed the registration certificate of the vehicle. Whatever be the nature of proof as to the ownership of the various items of immovable properties, the ownership of a vehicle can be ascertained only through registration certificate. Unless the appellant files the registration certificate, which discloses that he is the owner of the vehicle, no way the trial Court could have granted the relief prayed. He indirectly he admitted that he executed certain documents pertaining to the transfer of the vehicle. Accordingly, it is held that the appellant failed to prove the case pleaded by him.
Hence, the appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
The miscellaneous petitions, if any, filed in this appeal shall also stand disposed of.
_______________________ L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J
____________ S.V.BHATT, J
2nd July, 2013 Mar/Lrkm
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the suit for delivery of the lorry is barred by limitation.
Whether the appellant successfully proved his ownership of the vehicle.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Applmt
1st Respondent
2nd Respondent
3rd Respondent
4th Respondent
5th Respondent
L. NARASIMHA REDDY
S.V. BHATT
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
