JUDGMENT : G.R. MOOLCHANDANI, J. 1. 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. 2. 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. 3. Learned trial Court after going through the pleadings of both the sides framed nine following issues:- ^^1- vk;k oknh lu~ 1976 ls yxkrkj VªsDVj vkjŒtsŒ,Œ 7061 dk cgSfl;r jftLVªMZ vksuj ekfyd o dkfct jgk gSa tks oknh us viuh iSnkdrkZ py&vpy lEifRr dh dekbZ o /ku ls iSnk fd;k gS\ & oknh 2- vk;k izfroknh VsªDVj vkjŒtsŒ,Œ 7061 e; Vªksyh dks oknh ds fjgk;'kh uksgjs okds xzke iapdqbZ ru ?kks"kjkuk ls pykdj o Hkxk dj cuh;r pksjh ekg izFke lwpuk fjiksVZ ls iwoZ ys x;k ftldh ,QŒvkbZŒvkjŒ la[;k 26@91 Fkkuk [kSMyh ij ntZ gqbZ\ & oknh 3- vk;k VsªDVj vkjŒtsŒ,Œ 7061 e; Vªksyh oknh o izfroknh rFkk nhxj yM+dksa ds chp pksjh dh fjiksVZ ntZ gksus ls 2 o"kZ iwoZ gq;s lu~ 1989 ds tsB ds efgus esa ?k: caVokjk esa izfroknh ds fgLls esa vk;kA ;fn ,slk gS rks nkok gktk dj D;k vlj gS\ & izfroknh 4- vk;k oknh us vius yM+dksa ds chp fdlh Hkh lEifRr dk caVokjk ugha fd;k gS\ & oknh 5- vk;k oknh izfroknh dks QkStnkjh izdj.k esa lqiqnZukek ij fn;s x;s gq;s VsªDVj vkjŒtsŒ,Œ 7061 e; Vªksyh ij okfil n[ky izkIr djus dk vf/kdkjh gS\ & izfroknh 6- vk;k oknh us dksbZ Qhl de pLik dh gS rFkk oknh ls dksVZ Qhl 2 yk[k :i;s ij dkfcy olwyh gS\ & izfroknh 7- vk;k nkok dkfcy lekvr vnkyr gktk gSA & izfroknh 8- vk;k nkok vUnj e;kn is'k ugha gS\ 9- nknjlhA** 4. 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. 5. 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. 6. Heard submissions of both the sides, examined the impugned judgment and perused the record. 7. 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. 6. Heard submissions of both the sides, examined the impugned judgment and perused the record. 7. 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: ^^l'kiFk c;ku fd;k fd fookfnr VªsDVj thVj gS tks esjk gS] VªsDVj dks eSaus t;iqj ls [kjhn fd;k Fkk] [kjhn ds fy, cSad ls dtsZa ds :i, fy, Fks] dtkZ [ksMyh cSad ls fy;k Fkk] cSad dk dtkZ eSaus pqdk fn;k gSa] eSaus VsªDVj ls esgur djds dekdj dtkZ pqdk;kA esjs ikl lks igys eagr us crkbZ Fkh tks esjs ikl gh dk'r esa jg xbZA esjs ikap yM+ds vkSj ,d yM+dh gSA yM+ds bUnj] cPpw] jkepj.k] :iukjk;.k] y{ehukjk;.k gSa vkSj yM+dh rqylk gSA yM+dh rqylk dh 'kknh dj nh Fkh ysfdu mldk ifr lgh ugha Fkk blfy, vc rqylk gekjs ikl gh jgrh gS] jkepj.k dh 'kknh djhc 25 lky igys xzke dkaVokMh esa gqbZ] jkepj.k ds dksbZ lkyk ugha gS] jkepj.k djhc chlksa lky ls dkaVokMh esa gh jg jgk gS] jkepj.k ds llqj dh tehu jkepj.k ds ikl gS tks djhc 15&20 ch?kk tehu gksxh] jkepj.k dk llqj ej x;k gS] uRFkh pekj us esjs f[kykQ o esjs pkjksa yM+dksa ds f[kykQ NqvkNwr dh fjiksVZ ntZ djkbZ Fkh] fjiksVZ ntZ djkbZ ml ckr dks djhc 12&13 lky gks x,] rc ge tekur djkus vyoj pys x, rks ihNs ls jkepj.k esjs lwus VsªDVj] Vªksyh dks pqjkdj ys x;k] bl ckr dks 7&8 lky gks x,A eSaus jkepj.k dks VsªDVj dk dksbZ caVokjk ugha fd;k FkkA eSaus VsªDVj dh fjiksVZ vyoj ,lŒihŒ lkgc dks ntZ djkbZ D;ksafd Fkkus okyksa us ugha yh] rc [ksMyh Fkkus ij eqdnek ntZ gqvkA iqfyl VsªDVj o Vªksyh dks tCr djds ykbZ rc vnkyr ls eq>s VsªDVj Vªksyh feysA jkepj.k us mls vkns'k dh vihy t;iqj dh] vihy esa VsªDVj dks lqiqnZxh ij jkepj.k dks nsus o eq>s VsªDVj ds fy, nkok djus ds vkns'k gq,A VªsDVj dk ekfyd eSa gwWa vksj eSa gh ml VªsDVj dks j[kus dk vf/kdkjh gwWaA izFke lwpuk fjiksVZ dh lR;izfr izn'kZ&1] udy vkns'k tekur izn'kZ&2] udy vkns'k fnukad 14-03-1991 izn'kZ&3] udy vknsf'kdk fnukad 02-05-1992 izn'kZ&4] jlhn izn'kZ&4] jlhn izn'kZ&5] jlhn izn'kZ&6] jlhn izn'kZ&7] ejEer dk fcy izn'kZ&8] fctkbZ] e'khu [kjhnus dk fcy izn'kZ&9] Mhty dh iphZ izn'kZ&10 o izn'kZ&11] chek jlhn izn'kZ&12] ifjp; i= dk;kZy; iapk;r lfefr dBwej izn'kZ&13] feL=h ds fcy izn'kZ&14] izn'kZ&15] jktŒ LVsV ,xzks t;iqj dh jlhn izn'kZ&16] ba';ksjsal dEiuh dh jlhn izn'kZ&17] izn'kZ&18] chek dh jlhn izn'kZ&19 jktŒ LVsV bxzks b.MŒ dh jlhn izn'kZ&20] e'khu VwYl dh jlhn izn'kZ&21] VsªDVj dk Vksdu izn'kZ&22] VsªDVj dk fcy izn'kZ&23] cSad dh jlhn uks MW~;wt izn'kZ&24] Vªksyh ds feL=h dh jlhn izn'kZ&25] cSad dk uksfVl izn'kZ&26] Mhty dh jlhnsa izn'kZ&27 ykŒ 32] feL=h dk fcy izn'kZ&33] lfoZl dh jlhnsa izn'kZ&34 o izn'kZ&35 ekaxi= ljiap iapk;r jksuhtk izn'kZ&36] udy tekcanh laor~ 2050 izn'kZ&37 is'k fd, gSaA** 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.1 Ramcharan 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 then, which makes the factum of said partition suspicious because Johari says it was oral whereas his family member witnesses avers that it was documented. 8. 8. 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:- ^^gkykafd nksuksa i{kksa us vius leFkZu esa 'kiFk&i= ,oa vU; nLrkost is'k fd;s gSaA ysfdu pwafd izdj.k esa vHkh vuqla/kku fd;k tkuk gSA vr% ekeys ds xq.kkoxq.k ij dksbZ fuf'pr jk; izdV djuk mfpr ugha gS blds vykok bl LVst ij i{kdkjksa ds vf/kdkjksa dks r; djus ds fy, vyx ls tkap fd;k tkuk Hkh mfpr ugha gSA ckdh Qfj;knh tksgjh tIr'kqnk VªsDVj Vªksyh ds la;qDr ifjokj dh lEifRr gksus ckcr~ dksbZ lcwr ugha gSA izkFkhZ jkepj.k us nks lky iwoZ gq, caVokjs esa Lo;a dks VªsDVj feyuk o rHkh ls ml ij dkfct gksuk crk;k gSA ysfdu bruh yEch vof/k rd VsªDVj mlds ikl jgus ij Hkh VsªDVj ls lacaf/kr fdlh dkxtkr esa mldk uke ntZ ugha gSA brus vge caVokjs dk Hkh dksbZ fyf[kr lcwr ugha gSA fQj ;fn i{kdkjksa esa tk;nkn laca/kh fookn gS rks muds flfoy vf/kdkjksa dk fu.kZ; flfoy U;k;ky; }kjk gh fd;k tk ldrk gS gks ldrk gS VªsDVj Vªksyh ys tkus esa vfHk;qDr jkepj.k dk csbZekuh iw.kZ vk'k; ugha jgk gks vkSj mldk ;g dR; vijk/k dh Js.kh esa ugha vkrk gks fQj Hkh mDr ifjfLFkfr;ksa esa tcfd izkFkhZ vfHk;qDr jkepj.k ds ikl VsªDVj ds LokfeRo dk dksbZ Js"Brj lcwr ugha gS rFkk ?kVuk ds laca/k esa Hkh vHkh vkxs vuqla/kku fd;k tkuk gSA ,slh fLFkfr esa tIr 'kqnk VsªDVj mlds jftLVªMZ vkWuj Qfj;knh tksgjh dh vfHkj{kk esa gh lqiqnZ fd;k tkuk mfpr gksxkA** This order was subsequently modified by learned High Court in S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No.438/1991 with the observation: ^^mijksDr ifjfLFkfr;ksa dks ns[krs gq, ,oa izdj.k ds rF;ksa dks ns[kus ls ;g Li"V gS fd jkepj.k o tkSgjh vkil esa firk iq= gS vkSj muesa lEifRr ds ekeys esa fookn gS vkSj iqfyl us Hkh vuqla/kku ds mijkUr ;g ik;k gS fd i{kdkjksa esa vkil esa nhokuh okn gS vkSj izkFkhZ dks funksZ"k ik;kA ;g Hkh fufoZokn gS fd iqfyl us VsªDVj o Vªksyh izkFkhZ ds dCts ls gh tIr dh Fkh ;|fi mldk iath;u tkSgjh vizkFkhZ ds uke ls gSA egt blfy, fd VªsDVj dk jftLVsª'ku tksgjh vizkFkhZ ds uke ls gS VsªDVj o Vªksyh tkSgjh vizkFkhZ dks lqiqnZxh ij fn;k tkuk mfpr izrhr ugha gksrkA ;g fookn dh VªsDVj dk okLro esa ekfyd dkSu gS\ VªsDVj dks j[kus dk vf/kdkj fdldks gS\ ;g fcUnq nhokuh vnkyr gh r; djsxh vkSj bl nkf.Md izdj.k esa Qfj;knh }kjk izLrqr izksLVsLV ;kfpdk dk fuLrkj.k ugha fd;k tk ldkA vr% D;ksafd VsªDVj&Vªksyh dks iqfyl }kjk cjkenh izkFkhZ ds dCts ls dh xbZ Fkh] mls izkFkhZ dks gh lqiZnxh ij fn;k tkuk esjh jk; esa mfpr gksxkA** 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.