Judgment :- 1. The plaintiff in O.S. No. 441 of 1983 on the file of the District Munsif, Attur, is the appellant herein. He has filed the said suit against the respondent for injunction, restraining, the respondent from seizing the vehicle bearing Registration No. TDS 5619 in order to recover the amount due under the Hire Purchase Agreement. The defence of the respondent is that the Original Registration Number of the Vehicle is MED 5619 and the plaintiff entered into a hire purchase agreement for the said vehicle. After the vehicle was re-registered and new number has been given, the hire purchase agreement has been renewed and the same was entered into in the R.C. Book. The case of the plaintiff that the hire purchase agreement has been discharged is not true. The trial Court, after elaborately discussing the evidence, decreed the suit by its Judgment and Decree dated 17.10.1984 finding that there are two hire purchase agreements in the R.C. Book. If the earlier hire purchase agreement has been discharged and subsequently the current hire purchase agreement had been entered into or if the second hire purchase agreement is the renewal of the earlier hire purchase agreement, then the earlier hire purchase agreement ought to have been given a discharge. Since the discharged endorsement was there, the trial Court entertained a doubt and decreed the suit. Aggrieved by the same, the defendani preferred an appeal, A.S. No. 220 of 1984 on the file of the District Court, Salem. The learned Principal District Judge, after considering the evidence, has found that the subsequent hire purchase agreement is only a renewal of the earlier one and as such there is no need to make an endorsement with regard to the discharge of the earlier hire purchase agreement, and ultimately dismissed the suit, by his judgment and decrree dated 4.5.1985. Hence, the Second Appeal. 2. At the time of admitting the Second Appeal, the following substantial question of law had been formulated:— “In the absence of the second hire purchase agreement dated 13.4.1982 having not been notified to the Registering Authorities under the Motor Vehicles Act as required under Section 31 therein, could it be acted upon to grant relief in the present suit”? 3. At the time of admitting the Second Appeal, the following substantial question of law had been formulated:— “In the absence of the second hire purchase agreement dated 13.4.1982 having not been notified to the Registering Authorities under the Motor Vehicles Act as required under Section 31 therein, could it be acted upon to grant relief in the present suit”? 3. Even though Section 31 of the Motor Vehicles Act makes it clear that the endorsement should be made when the hire purchase agreement is discharged, in this case admittedly the registration of the vehicle has been changed and a new number has been allotted and at that time, the parties have renewed the hire purchase agreement by giving a discharge of the earlier hire purchase agreement. It is not the case of the plaintiff that the defendant is claiming amount on both the hire purchase agreements. When that be so, it is clear that the lower Appellate Court has rightly found that the defendant is demanding the amount due only under the second hire purchase agreement giving an implied discharge to the earlier hire purchase agreement, as the second one is only a continuation of the earlier agreement. I do not see any reason to interfere with the findings of the lower Appellate Court. Accordingly, the Second Appeal is dismissed. However, there will be no order as to costs.