Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 831 (JHR)

Anil Kumar Barnawal v. Bharat Lal Burnawal

2011-09-05

N.N.TIWARI

body2011
JUDGMENT This appeal is against the judgment and decree passed by learned Additional District Judge, F.T.C.III, Dhanbad in Title Appeal No.175 of 2006, upholding and affirming the judgment and decree dated 12th September, 2006 passed by learned MunsifI, Dhanbad in Title Suit no.73 of 2004. 2. The plaintiff is the appellant. He had filed the said Title Suit no.73 of 2004 against the defendant/respondent, praying for a decree declaring that he is registered owner of the suit vehicle and the defendant has no manner of right, title and interest over the same. 3. The plaintiff's case was that he is registered owner of Auto Rickshaw, bearing Registration No.JH10A5126. On 14th April, 2004, the defendant forced the plaintiff to take drinks in a party. The plaintiff and the defendant were friends and as such he obliged the defendant by taking drink, but lost his senses. The defendant, taking advantage of the situation, managed to get signature of the plaintiff and forged some papers and removed the papers of the said vehicle. The defendant, thereafter, started claiming that he has purchased the vehicle from the plaintiff. When the plaintiff came to his senses, he went to Bank More Police Station on 16th April, 2004 for lodging information regarding the said incident dated 14th April, 2004, but the police authorities were busy in election duty and no action was taken. The plaintiff, thereafter, gave information to the District Transport Officer, Dhanbad about the loss of R.C. Book. It was averred that he had not transferred the vehicle to the defendant and the defendant has no right title over the said vehicle. 4. The defendant contested the suit by filing written statement. It was stated, inter alia, that the plaintiff was the registered owner. He sold the vehicle to the defendant on a valuable consideration of Rs.61,000/. The plaintiff had, thereafter, delivered possession of the said vehicle and also acknowledged receipt of the consideration amount. The plaintiff had also sworn affidavit dated 15th March, 2004 regarding the sale of the vehicle and receipt of Rs.61,000/ from the defendant. Against the said vehicle, some road tax was due. The plaintiff, therefore, executed Form Nos.29 and 30 of Central Motor Vehicles Rules and filed the same to the registering authority. All the relevant papers were submitted before the District Transport Officer, Dhanbad by the plaintiff. Against the said vehicle, some road tax was due. The plaintiff, therefore, executed Form Nos.29 and 30 of Central Motor Vehicles Rules and filed the same to the registering authority. All the relevant papers were submitted before the District Transport Officer, Dhanbad by the plaintiff. Fees were also deposited through challan dated 24th March, 2004 in the Treasury Office, Dhanbad. After some time, the plaintiff with dishonest intention intercepted the vehicle on road and forced the driver at gun point to take the same to his residence. The defendant, on getting information about the incident, lodged F.I.R. in Dhanbad Police Station. The incident was also reported to the Deputy Commissioner and Superintendent of Police, Dhanbad. A case was registered against the plaintiff. In order to create defence, the plaintiff also filed a complaint case against the defendant, being C.P. Case no.555 of 2004. It has been stated that the entire allegation of the plaintiff is wholly false and baseless. 5. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, several issues were framed by the learned Trial Court. 6. Both the parties adduced evidencesoral and documentary. 7. Learned Trial Court, on conclusion of the trial, decided almost all issues against the plaintiff and dismissed the suit. 8. The plaintiff, thereafter, preferred appeal, being Title Appeal no.175 of 2006 in the court of learned District Judge, Dhanbad. 9. The said appeal was finally heard and decided by the learned Additional District Judge, F.T.C.III, Dhanbad by the impugned judgment. 10. Learned Lower Appellate Court thoroughly examined facts, evidences and materials on record. He also discussed and considered the grounds and submissions and came to the conclusion that the plaintiff was the owner of Auto Rickshaw and he has sold the same to the defendant on consideration amount of Rs.61,000/. He had acknowledged receipt of money from the defendant. The plaintiff failed to prove his allegation that his signature was obtained on blank paper forcibly, while he was under the influence of liquor. 11. Learned Lower Appellate Court has come to the conclusion that there is no error in the findings of the learned Trial Court and no ground for appeal was made out for disturbing the same. Learned appellate court, thus, dismissed the plaintiff's appeal. 12. 11. Learned Lower Appellate Court has come to the conclusion that there is no error in the findings of the learned Trial Court and no ground for appeal was made out for disturbing the same. Learned appellate court, thus, dismissed the plaintiff's appeal. 12. In the second appeal, the judgment and decree of the learned Lower Appellate Court has been assailed on the ground that there is no proper appreciation of facts and evidences on record either by learned Trial Court or by Lower Appellate Court and the impugned judgments and decrees are illegal, perverse and unsustainable. 13. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the impugned judgments and decrees of the courts below and meticulously scrutinized the record. 14. I find that the learned Trial Court as well as learned Lower Appellate Court have thoroughly discussed the facts and evidences, considered the same in right perspective and after proper appreciation of relevant aspects have concurrently came to the findings that the plaintiff has sold the vehicle on receiving consideration amount and has executed the required document for the purpose of transferring the same. 15. The said findings of facts of learned courts below are based on detail appraisal of facts and evidences on record. 16. The concurrent finding of facts by the said two courts are binding on the second appellate court. 17. I find no error or illegality in the impugned judgments and decrees of the learned courts below, giving rise to any substantial question of law to be framed and decided by this Court. 18. This appeal is, accordingly, dismissed.