JUDGMENT 1. - This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 26.4.1990 passed by the learned District Judge, Jhalawar in Civil Original Suit No. 3/82 (Venkateswar v. Rampratap) . 2. By the aforesaid judgment and decree, the learned District Judge has dismissed the suit filed by the present appellant, who was the original plaintiff of the said suit. The plaintiff herein instituted the aforesaid suit for recovering of Rs. 37,900/- before the learned trial Court on the ground that on 26.9.1978 defendant Rampratap had sold a motor car being Premier Padmini Fiat Car to the plaintiff-appellant having Registration No.RRG-3625 (Chassis No. PA-200583 and Engine No. PA-120858) for a consideration of Rs. 22,001/-. For the aforesaid transaction, the defendant also executed a receipt (Ex.1). After the said purchase, the registration of the said car was also transferred in favour of the plaintiff. The defendant got the registration transferred in the name of the plaintiff, which took place at Registration Office at Jhalawar. The said Is vehicle was given thereafter new Registration No.CPF-7929 as the vehicle was subsequently registered at RTO, Indore. It is also the case of the plaintiff that after the purchase of the said car, the plaintiff started using the said vehicle and he had also incurred some expenditure in repairing the said vehicle. According to the plaintiff, the said car was used by his brother-in-law, Nirmal Kumar Garg at Indore. At the relevant time, the said car was in possession of his brother-in-law and at that time on 2.6.1979, the Delhi Police came and seized the said par on the ground that it was a stolen vehicle on the basis of the complaint filed before the Delhi Police under Section 379 I.P.C., which was registered at Police Station, Parliament Street, Delhi. It is the case of the plaintiff that in view of the seizure of the said car by the police on 2.6.1979, from the date the plaintiff has been denied the possession and enjoyment of the said car and that it is a failure of consideration and on that basis, the plaintiff is entitled to recover the said amount being the price of the car realised by the defendant, plus Rs. 9,900/- being amount of interest on the sale price calculated @ 15% PA. and Rs. 6,000/- on the basis of rise in the price of car as damages. 9,900/- being amount of interest on the sale price calculated @ 15% PA. and Rs. 6,000/- on the basis of rise in the price of car as damages. In total, the plaintiff has filed the suit for recovery of Rs.37,900/- before the learned trial Court. According to the plaintiff, the said rate of interest is charged as per the prevailing bank rate. 3. The aforesaid suit was resisted by the defendant by filing written statement. It is the case of the defendant that the said car was initially recovered from the possession of one Biharilal and one Pritam Singh S/o Shri Gopal Singh Sardar, who is relative of said Biharilal in Bhawani Mandi, and he had taken the possession of the said car from the police custody by giving security and thereafter for about 15-20 days the said car had remained at the house of Pritam Singh in Bhawani Mandi. It is also the case of the defendant that the brother-in-law of the plaintiff, namely, Nirmal Kumar Garg is doing the business of repairing the motor vehicles and also doing the business of reselling the motor vehicles in Bhawani Mandi. Said Nirmal Kumar used to visit at Bhawani Mandi and during his visit at Bhawani Mandi, he saw the said car. Since said Nirmal Kumar is doing the business of purchasing motor vehicles, the plaintiff and Nirmal Kumar both inspected the said car alongwith the papers of the said car as Nirmal Kumar wanted to purchase the said car. The plaintiff and the defendant both were having good relationship. It is also the case of the defendant that the defendant wanted to go for pilgrimage and, therefore, the defendant informed the plaintiff that he is also willing to purchase the said car but when the defendant realised that since Nirmal Kumar wanted to purchase the said car, he ultimately informed the plaintiff that he is interested in purchasing the said car for a limited period as he wanted to go for pilgrimage and after returning from the pilgrimage, he will re-sell the said car to the plaintiff. The plaintiff and his brother-in-law helped the defendant in purchasing the said car. The plaintiff and his brother-in-law helped the defendant in purchasing the said car. At the time of said purchase, Biharilal had assured the defendant that the registration of the car will be transferred in favour of the purchaser and on such assurance, the defendant had purchased the said car and after the said purchase, the registration of the car was transferred in favour of the defendant. After returning from the pilgrimage, the defendant informed the plaintiff whether he is willing to purchase the said car and thereafter, he purchased the said car with a full knowledge about its title. At the time of purchasing the said car, the defendant and Nirmal Kumar both were present and both agreed to help the plaintiff in getting NOC from Registration Office, Jaipur as the same was required by Nirmal Kumar for registration at Indore in M.P, and, therefore, NOC was given by the defendant in Rajasthan. Even though, the price was agreed at Rs. 22,000/-, the plaintiff had paid only Rs. 18,000/- to the defendant and assured the defendant that the remaining amount will be paid later on after getting the NOC. Thereafter, the plaintiff himself went to Jaipur and took the NOC from Transport Department but the remaining amount i.e. Rs. 4,000/- was not paid to the defendant. According to the defendant, at the time of sale, whatever title, which was in favour of the defendant, was in the knowledge of the plaintiff and in spite of the said knowledge, he purchased o the said car from the defendant. It is also the case of the defendant that the possession of the said car remained with Nirmal Kumar and he was not aware whether any improvements were made subsequently in the said car. It is also the case of the defendant that since the plaintiff had transferred the NOC and registration of the car in favour of Nirmal Kumar, the plaintiff had no right to file the suit against him. On the aforesaid grounds, the suit of the plaintiff was resisted by the defendant. 4. Learned trial Court framed as many as six issues arising out of the pleadings and after considering the oral and documentary evidence available on record, the trial Court has found that the defendant has failed to prove that the plaintiff had not paid the remaining amount of Rs. 4,000/- of the sale consideration. 4. Learned trial Court framed as many as six issues arising out of the pleadings and after considering the oral and documentary evidence available on record, the trial Court has found that the defendant has failed to prove that the plaintiff had not paid the remaining amount of Rs. 4,000/- of the sale consideration. On issue No.2, the learned trial Court has found that at the time of purchasing the said car, the fact that the said car was a stolen vehicle was in the knowledge of the plaintiff. The trial Court also found that the plaintiff is not entitled to get benefit of Section 14 of the Sale of Goods Act, 1930 (for short `the Act'). The trial Court also found that the plaintiff has transferred the vehicle to his brother-in-law, Nirmal Kumar Garg. The trial Court believed the say of the defendant that the defendant purchased the said car from Biharilal who in turn transferred it to his brother-in-law Nirmal Kumar and the fact that Nirmal Kumar was present during the transaction, goes to show that the car was purchased by him. The trial Court found that the plaintiff had no right to file the suit as he had transferred the car to his brother-in-law. The trial Court also came to the conclusion that since the plaintiff could not file any suit against his relative, therefore, the suit was filed against the present defendant. Accordingly, the trial Court dismissed the suit filed by the plaintiff, against which the plaintiff has filed this first appeal before this High Court under Section 96 of the C.P.C. 5. Learned counsel Mr. B.L. Mandhana for the appellant submitted that the trial Court has not properly appreciated the documentary and oral evidence on record. He further submitted that considering the evidence on record, it is clear that the plaintiff had proved his case. Mr. Mandhana has also relied upon the oral and documentary evidence on record to substantiate his say that the trial Court has not properly appreciated the evidence on record and has wrongly dismissed the suit filed by the plaintiff. 6. On the other hand, Mr. Kamal Gupta appearing for Mr. Mr. Mandhana has also relied upon the oral and documentary evidence on record to substantiate his say that the trial Court has not properly appreciated the evidence on record and has wrongly dismissed the suit filed by the plaintiff. 6. On the other hand, Mr. Kamal Gupta appearing for Mr. Mahesh Gupta, learned counsel for the respondent submits that as per the evidence on record, the learned trial Court has rightly dismissed the suit and that the plaintiff had no locus standi to file the suit as he has already transferred the vehicle to his brother-in-law Nirmal Kumar, who transferred the same subsequently to someon else, and in that view of the matter the suit was not maintainable without joining Nirmal Kumar as a party. He further submitted that the plaintiff knew that the title was not perfect, therefore, he is not entitled to receive any amount from the defendant under the provisions of the Sale of Goods Act, 1930. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the oral and documentary evidence on record and also gone through the judgment and decree of the learned trial Court.The point which requires determination in this appeal is whether the plaintiff has proved his case about failure of consideration and whether the plaintiff is entitled to receive the amount back from the defendant. In this connection, the plaintiff had examined himself as PW3. 8. In his evidence, the plaintiff had categorically stated that he had purchased the car in question being RRG-3265 for a consideration of Rs. 22,001/- from the defendant. In his evidence, he had stated that he came to know about 2 to 3 days prior to such purchase that the defendant wanted to sell the said car. He also stated that the defendant came to his shop and demanded Rs. 50,000/- and ultimately, transaction was settled at Rs. 22,0001/-. Subsequently, he paid the amount and the defendant got the said vehicle transferred in the name of the plaintiff. At that time, the defendant also executed a receipt, which is also produced on record. The plaintiff has stated in his evidence that his brother in law, Nirmal Kumar, is engaged in the business of paper mill of which he is a partner and at the relevant time, he had gone to the plaintiff's house to see his sister. At that time, the defendant also executed a receipt, which is also produced on record. The plaintiff has stated in his evidence that his brother in law, Nirmal Kumar, is engaged in the business of paper mill of which he is a partner and at the relevant time, he had gone to the plaintiff's house to see his sister. The plaintiff has also stated in his evidence that the defendant had submitted the papers of the car in the RTO, Jhalawar after getting the car transferred in his name. In his cross-examination, he has stated that after about 2 to 7 days of such purchase, he went to Indore. In his evidence, he has stated that his daughter was studying at Indore, therefore, his daughter had to go to Indore but the vehicle got damaged and Nirmal Kumar told him to take his sister (plaintiff's wife) to Indore in the said vehicle and ultimately the said vehicle was got repaired at Indore. At that time, the Delhi Police seized the said vehicle from Indore. He also stated that his brother-in-law told him about seizure of the vehicle on telephone. After about 10 to 20 days, when he went to Indore, at that time Nirmal Kumar handed over the papers to him, which were given to Nirmal Kumar by the Police. The plaintiff has also stated that thereafter, the plaintiff served a notice on the defendant through his advocate Shri Ishwar Chand Upadhyaya of Indore, but the same notice was not replied by the defendant. The plaintiff has denied that he was knowing Biharilal. The plaintiff has also denied that he had transferred the said car to Nirmal Kumar. In his cross-examination, he has stated that at the time when the car was seized by the Police at Indore, the Registration of the car was in his favour. He also denied that the registration was in the name of one Sardar. Regarding getting the NOC, he has stated in his cross-examination that he wanted to settle at Indore and since he wanted to see that the car may be registered at M.P., he insisted for NOC. He denied the suggestion that his brother-in-law is doing that business of selling and purchasing the motor vehicles. He also denied the suggestion that the defendant had agreed to sell the car on whatever title the defendant had in connection with the said car. 9. He denied the suggestion that his brother-in-law is doing that business of selling and purchasing the motor vehicles. He also denied the suggestion that the defendant had agreed to sell the car on whatever title the defendant had in connection with the said car. 9. The plaintiff has also examined advocate Ishwar Chand. In his evidence, he has stated that the car in question was seized by the Police from Nirmal Kumar on 2.6.1979. The Police had come from Delhi Crime Branch and at that time, the Police had also seen the chassis and engine number of the car. He further stated that the car belonged to some officer of the Central Government. In his evidence, the said advocate has stated that the police had taken away the registration book from Nirmal Kumar and a seizure memo was also prepared by the Police, which was produced on record at Ex.4. He has stated that he had given notice to the defendant, but no reply was given by the defendant. Notice was also produced on record at Ex.6. In the cross-examination, the said witness stated that registration of the car was in the name of the plaintiff and the registration was not in the name of Nirmal Kumar. 10. Nirmal Kumar was also examined as PW5. In his evidence, he has stated that he is having paper factory at Indore and also having a cold storage. He has stated that he has never done any business of purchasing and selling cars. In his evidence, he has stated that at the time when the Police seized the car from Indore, the same was in his possession and at that time, he was not knowing that it was a stolen vehicle. He stated that registration book of the car was taken away by the Delhi Police. 11. Defendant-Rampratap has examined himself as DW1. In his evidence, he has stated that he had purchased the car from Biharilal by paying Rs. 25,000/- to him. The said Biharilal had come to Bhawani Mandi alongwith the car. Previously, the said car was lying at Police Station and the said car was got released by one Shri Pritam Singh, who is relative of Biharilal and thereafter, the car remained with Pritam Singh. 25,000/- to him. The said Biharilal had come to Bhawani Mandi alongwith the car. Previously, the said car was lying at Police Station and the said car was got released by one Shri Pritam Singh, who is relative of Biharilal and thereafter, the car remained with Pritam Singh. At the time when the car was lying at the house of Pritam Singh, the plaintiff's brother-in-law Nirmal Kumar came to Bhawani Mandi as he himself wanted to purchase the car and thereafter, he talked with Pritam Singh about the same and at that time, Nirmal Kumar went to see the condition of the car with one mechanic Jagan. The defendant has also stated that he also wanted to purchase the said car and, therefore, he wanted to see condition of the said car and since he was having good relationship with plaintiff, he told him that he wanted to purchase the said car. At that time, he told the plaintiff that he wanted to purchase the car for going to pilgrimage for a period of one and half month. The plaintiff agreed for the same and accordingly, he purchased the said car as he wanted to keep the said car for a period of one and half month. At that time, he permitted Nirmal Kumar to check the papers of the said car and to give him advice so Nirmal Kumar checked the papers and advised that the papers of the car were perfect and in view of the same, he purchased the said car. Subsequently, when he came back from pilgrimage, he told the plaintiff that he can purchase the said car from him. Thereafter, Nirmal Kumar came and he saw the papers of car and he thereafter purchased the car for Rs. 22,000/- for which Rs. 18,000/- were paid to him and he had agreed to pay remaining amount after getting the NOC but the said amount was not paid to him till date. In the cross-examination, he denied that he knew Biharilal from beginning. In the cross-examination, he stated that Pritam Singh was subjected to a murder trial. Regarding the receipt of the suit notice, he admitted that he had received the notice and thereafter he went to meet Biharilal and that he had not replied notice as he had an oral talk with Biharilal in this behalf. 12. The defendant examined one motor mechanic Jagan as DW2. Regarding the receipt of the suit notice, he admitted that he had received the notice and thereafter he went to meet Biharilal and that he had not replied notice as he had an oral talk with Biharilal in this behalf. 12. The defendant examined one motor mechanic Jagan as DW2. The said witness has stated that he examined the car and at that time the defendant had told him that since he wanted to go for pilgrimage, he wanted to purchase the car and at that time Nirmal Kumar told him that the defendant wanted to purchase the car for a limited period. In the cross-examination, the said witness admitted that Rampratap never told him that the car was a stolen one. 13. The defendant also examined one Pritam Singh as DW3. The said witness in his evidence stated that Biharilal is his relative and that he got the said vehicle released from the police custody. The said witness stated that Nirmal Kumar wanted to purchase the said car and Rampratap (defendant) also wanted to purchase it but only for a limited period as he wanted to go for pilgrimage. The said witness denied the suggestion that Biharilal was involved in a criminal case regarding theft of the car. In the cross-examination, he admitted that he was not aware whether the defendant sold the car to Nirmal Kumar and for what amount. 14. Considering the evidence on record, both oral and documentary, it cannot be disputed that the car in question was purchased by plaintiff himself, as the documentary evidence i.e. receipt at Ex.1 is very clear. The said receipt, which is a typed document, reads as under:- "RECEIPT RECEIVED WITH THANKS the sum of Rupees Twenty Two Thousand & one only (Rs. 22,001/-) from Shri Venkateshwar S/o Shri Chiranjilal Sureka R/o Bhawani Mandi, against the sale of my vehicle Regd. No.RRG 3265 Chassis No. PA-200583 Engine No. PA-120858 Model 1978. The above payment received in full and final/towards sale of my above car Serial No.RRG 3265. The above car is my/our absolute property free from all encumbrance and taxes are paid up to date. The above car is sold and delivered is perfect running order and condition as seen, tried and approved and as it stand today. From today he will be fully responsible for all future liabilities, police challans, Insurance Claims, Road Tax or Violence of any Govt. The above car is sold and delivered is perfect running order and condition as seen, tried and approved and as it stand today. From today he will be fully responsible for all future liabilities, police challans, Insurance Claims, Road Tax or Violence of any Govt. Control Rule and order. Date - 26.9.1978 Witness : Sd/- Address Address : J.K. Cement Dealer Bhawani Mandi (Raj.)." 15. The trial Court has rightly found that the amount in question was received by the defendant at the time of selling the car in question. It is required to be noted that the defendant himself had admitted that he had purchased the said vehicle and even the registration of the car at the time of purchase was also transferred in his name. It is not possible to believe that in view of the assurance given by the plaintiff or Nirmal Kumar that the defendant purchased the said car for a limited period for the purpose of going to pilgrimage. From the evidence, it is clear that the defendant himself had purchased the said car and the registration of the said car was also transferred in his name. The theory put forwarded by the defendant regarding purchasing the car for going to pilgrimage is nothing but an afterthought as he has not produced any evidence to show that he has gone at any pilgrimage place, nor produced any receipt of petrol consumption or any such particular to substantiate that he had gone for pilgrimage during that period. Even if, it is believed that the defendant had gone on pilgrimage after purchase of the said car, the said fact is not relevant as the fact remains that the defendant had purchased the said car in his own name and subsequently, he sold the car to the plaintiff and he has also executed the receipt (Ex.1). The say of the defendant is, therefore, not at all believable to the effect that on the assurance of the plaintiff, he purchased the car only for a limited period with a view to utilise the same for going to pilgrimage and only conclusion which is possible from the evidence on record is that the defendant had sold the said car to the plaintiff as per the receipt (Ex.1). The question which requires consideration is whether the car in question was purchased by the plaintiff or by his brother-in-law Nirmal Kumar. The question which requires consideration is whether the car in question was purchased by the plaintiff or by his brother-in-law Nirmal Kumar. So far as the said question is concerned, as per the evidence on record, it is clear that the defendant got NOC in the name of the plaintiff from Jaipur. He wanted to settle at Indore in M.P. He wanted to use the said car at Indore in M.P. and in these circumstances, he permitted his brother-in-law to use the said car at Indore especially when his daughter was also residing there. There is nothing on record to show that thereafter the registration of the car was ever changed in the name of his brother-in-law or to anyone else. In this behalf, search document is very relevant. The search memo which was prepared by the police officer clearly shows that as to how the registration was transferred from time to time and as per the same on 26.9.1978, the registration was transferred in the name of the plaintiff-Venkateswar through RTO, Jhalawar and that on 30.6.1979 the plaintiff had paid the tax and he also paid the tax on 18.5.1979 at RTO, Indore. If the car had been transferred in the name of plaintiff's brother-in-law Nirmal Kumar, there would have been a reference in search memo at Ex.1 in this behalf. Simply because the plaintiff kept the said car at Indore with a view to see that his brother-in-law and daughter may use the same, no ground for coming to the conclusion that the plaintiff was not the owner of the said car at the relevant time. Therefore, in these circumstances, the search memo is relevant for the purpose of deciding the said aspect. Considering the aforesaid evidence, it is clear that the defendant after accepting the amount from the plaintiff handed over the car to the plaintiff. In this regard, a receipt was also executed by the defendant, which is self-explanatory. Under these circumstances, the trial Court has erred in coming to the conclusion that the plaintiff was not entitled to bring the suit in question. 16. Next question which requires consideration is whether the plaintiff purchased the car in question with the knowledge that it was a stolen car. In this behalf, the receipt (Ex.1) makes it clear that the said car is of defendant's absolute property and it is free from all encumbrances. 16. Next question which requires consideration is whether the plaintiff purchased the car in question with the knowledge that it was a stolen car. In this behalf, the receipt (Ex.1) makes it clear that the said car is of defendant's absolute property and it is free from all encumbrances. Such receipt itself makes the position clear. In the aforesaid circumstances, with full assurance about its title for which he executed a receipt, he sold the said car to him and now he cannot escape the liability to pay back the amount to the plaintiff in view of the failure of consideration. There is an implied warranty regarding the title in view of Section 14 of the Sale of Goods Act. Section 14 of the Act reads as under : "14. Implied undertaking as to title, etc. - In a contract of sale, unless the circumstances of the contract are such as to show a different intention there is - (a) an implied condition on part of the seller that, in the case of a sale, he has a right to sell the goods and that, in the case of an agreement to sell, he will have a right to sell the goods at the time when the property is to pass; (b) an implied warranty that the buyer shall have and enjoy quiet possession of the goods; (c) an implied warranty that the goods shall be free from any charge or encumbrance in favour of any third party not declared or known to the buyer before or at the time when the contract is made." 17. Considering the evidence on record, it is not possible to believe that in the present case, the circumstances are such which show the different intention. As stated earlier, the defendant after getting the document registered in his favour sold the vehicle and there is nothing on record to show that the plaintiff had any doubt about title or that the plaintiff was aware that it was a stolen vehicle. Even Ex.1 is also very clear in his behalf wherein defendant has said that the vehicle in question was his absolute property, free from all encumbrance and taxes were paid up to date. In this connection a reference is also required to be made by this Court in the case of Khinwa Singh v. Nemi Singh, reported in 1966 RLW 148 . In this connection a reference is also required to be made by this Court in the case of Khinwa Singh v. Nemi Singh, reported in 1966 RLW 148 . In para 8 of the said case, the learned Single Judge of this Court has observed as under : "It is true that the plaintiff's notice Ex.3 shows that, at the time of the purchase, the plaintiff warned the defendant that the buffalo which was with Paudansingh was of a Baheti of Karel, and the plea of implied warrant of title would not be available if it can be shown that the plaintiff had guilty knowledge that the buffalo had been stolen or that, for any other reason it did not belong to the seller. This is so because the law recognizes that a seller may sell only such title or interest as he may have in the property, so that if the nature of the seller's right is known to the buyer to be of a doubtful character, it would be proper to infer that the parties intended to buy and sell only such title as the seller had. But I find that, so far as the present case is concerned, it was not the defendant's case that there was any infirmity in his title or that he pointed out the doubtful character of his title to the plaintiff so as to take the case away from the purview of the law of implied warranty of title. On the other hand, as I have just mentioned, the defendant persisted, even when the plaintiff expressed a doubt that the buffalo might be of a Baheti of Karel, and assured the plaintiff that this was not so and that he was its owner by purchase. So when the defendant sold the property as owner, there is no reason why the plaintiff should not be entitled to the implied warranty of title, for it is an essential character of an ordinary sale that it transfers the absolute or general property in the sold goods to the buyer." 18. As discussed earlier, there is nothing on record to suggest that the defendant ever pointed out that he was not having perfect title and on the contrary receipt (Ex.1) is clear that the defendant had given an assurance in the form of said receipt showing him to be an absolute owner of the said vehicle. As discussed earlier, there is nothing on record to suggest that the defendant ever pointed out that he was not having perfect title and on the contrary receipt (Ex.1) is clear that the defendant had given an assurance in the form of said receipt showing him to be an absolute owner of the said vehicle. The evidence of the defendant is not at all trustworthy as the theory of purchasing the vehicle for few days, as he wanted to go at pilgrimage, is not believable, as discussed earlier. Under the normal circumstances, a person would immediately reply to the said notice denying the allegations in such suit notice, if the transaction had taken place in the manner in which the defendant has alleged. 19. Considering the evidence on record, in my view, the plaintiff is entitled to succeed and he is also entitled to get back the amount of consideration from the defendant even though an assurance was given to the plaintiff that the defendant was absolute owner of the vehicle and ultimately it was found to be a stolen vehicle. So far as question of non-joinder of the parties is concerned, there is nothing on record that the plaintiff had lost his title over the said car in any manner at the time of filing of the suit simply because the plaintiff had permitted his brother-in-law to use the said car and simply because the car was kept at Indore, is not a ground for coming to the conclusion that the plaintiff had lost the title over the said vehicle at the time of filing of the suit. In this behalf, seizure memo is also very much clear and relevant. Under these circumstances, in my view, the trial Court has not properly appreciated the evidence on record and the trial Court was not right in dismissing the suit of the plaintiff on the ground that the plaintiff was not having substantive title and ownership over the said vehicle at the time of filing of the suit. So far as the question about incurring expenditure towards improvement of the car is concerned, since there is no evidence in this behalf, no amount can be awarded to the plaintiff in this behalf. 20. Under these circumstances, the plaintiff is entitled to principal amount of Rs. So far as the question about incurring expenditure towards improvement of the car is concerned, since there is no evidence in this behalf, no amount can be awarded to the plaintiff in this behalf. 20. Under these circumstances, the plaintiff is entitled to principal amount of Rs. 20,001/- and also to get interest @ 12% per annum on the said amount from the date of seizure of the vehicle i.e. 2.6.1979 till filing of the suit and thereafter @ 6% per annum upto the realisation of the said amount. Accordingly, the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court is set aside, the suit of the plaintiff succeeds and the appeal is accordingly allowed to the aforesaid extent with no order as to costs.Appeal Allowed - Suit Decreed. *******