Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 1841 (MAD)

F. Laazar v. Suresh Chand Surana

2018-06-12

K.RAVICHANDRABAABU

body2018
JUDGMENT : The plaintiff, who lost before both the Courts below in a suit for declaration, permanent injunction and mandatory injunction, has filed the present second appeal before this Court. 2. The case of the appellant/plaintiff is as follows:- The plaintiff purchased a Maruthi Omni Car under hire-purchase by entering into a hire-purchase agreement with the first defendant. The previous owner of the said vehicle was one R.Rajendran. The hire-purchase price of the vehicle was Rs.1,21,000/- and the plaintiff paid a sum of Rs.61,000/- to the previous owner R.Rajendran and for the remaining a sum of Rs.60,000/-, the hire-purchase agreement was entered into. The hire-purchase charge was fixed as Rs.24,000/-. The plaintiff paid a sum of Rs.3,000/- for transferring the name of the vehicle from the previous owner to him. He also paid a sum of Rs.3,000/- as document charges. Interest was fixed at the rate of 20% per annum under the hire-purchase agreement. Due to certain financial difficulties, the plaintiff was unable to pay the instalment on certain occasions. As per the hire-purchase agreement, the balance amount payable to the first defendant is only a sum of Rs.35,000/-. On 07.11.1998, the defendants forcibly seized the vehicle without knowledge and consent of the plaintiff. 3. With the above contentions, the plaintiff filed the suit in O.S.No.818 of 1998 on the file of Principal District Munsif, Nagercoil for declaration to declare that the seizure of the vehicle is illegal; for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from transferring the vehicle to anyone else and for mandatory injunction directing the defendants 1 and 2 to handover the said vehicle to the plaintiff. 4. The defendant contested the suit. Their contentions before the trial Court are as follows:- The first defendant is the owner of the vehicle. The plaintiff is the second hirer, whereas, one Rajendran was the first hirer. The plaintiff never paid instalments regularly. A sum of Rs.32,000/- is due and payable by the plaintiff. As per terms of agreement repossessing the vehicle is valid. 5. The Trial Court, after considering the facts and circumstances and evidence let in before the Court, dismissed the suit. 6. Challenging the Judgment and Decree of the Trial Court, the aggrieved plaintiff filed appeal before the Principal Sub-Judge, Nagercoil in A.S.No.60 of 2002. The first appellate Court concurred with the findings of the Trial Court and thus, dismissed the appeal. The Trial Court, after considering the facts and circumstances and evidence let in before the Court, dismissed the suit. 6. Challenging the Judgment and Decree of the Trial Court, the aggrieved plaintiff filed appeal before the Principal Sub-Judge, Nagercoil in A.S.No.60 of 2002. The first appellate Court concurred with the findings of the Trial Court and thus, dismissed the appeal. Hence, the present second appeal is filed before this Court by the unsuccessful plaintiff. 7. At the time of admitting the second appeal, the following substantial questions of law were framed:- “1.Whether the interpretation of Clause 4(20) of Ex.A1 by the Courts below is sustainable in law? 2. Whether the judgment and decree of the Lower Appellate Court is sustainable in law as much as not followed the Judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and this Hon'ble Court under Order 41 Rule 31?” 8. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant and the learned counsel appearing for the respondents. 9. The present second appeal is filed against the concurrent findings rendered by the two fact finding courts below, namely, the trial Court as well as the first appellate Court. Perusal of the findings rendered by the courts below would show that the only objection raised by the plaintiff was that he is entitled for protection of seizure under Section 20 of the Hire- Purchase Act, 1972, as he has paid a portion of the hire-purchase price. The Courts below found that the plaintiff himself had admitted that he was due and liable to pay a sum of Rs.32,000/- to the first defendant, apart from the sum already paid by him to the tune of Rs.52,000/-. Thus, the Courts below pointed out that out of the total sum of Rs.82,000/- payable to the first defendant, the plaintiff having paid only a sum of Rs.52,000/- with an admitted liability of the balance amount of Rs.32,000/-, is not entitled to protection under Section 20 of the Hire-Purchase Act, 1972, since such protection is available only when the plaintiff has paid 3/4th of the hire- purchase agreement, representing “Statutory Proportion” as contemplated under the said provision of law. 10. 10. The said factual findings rendered by the Courts below based on the admitted position that the plaintiff was due to pay a sum of Rs.32,000/- to the first defendant, out of the total sum of Rs.82,000/- cannot be assailed by the appellant as he himself has admitted such due. No doubt, he has taken a plea that the sum paid to the previous owner namely, the said Rajendran should also to be taken into account. But the courts below concurrently found that the hire-purchase agreement price does not include the sum paid to the said Rajendran and thus, that will not come under the purview of the hire-purchase agreement. These factual findings rendered by the courts below on appreciation of evidence and pleadings of the parties do not require any interference by this Court, more particularly, when those factual findings do not give raise any cause for the plaintiff to raise a question of law, much less a substantial question of law before this Court to sustain the second appeal. It is true that at the time of admitting the second appeal, two questions of law were framed as referred supra. Insofar as the first question of law is concerned, in view of the discussion made supra, more particularly in agreeing with the concurrent findings rendered based on the question of facts and also in view of the admitted case of plaintiff's liability to pay the first defendant, I am of the firm view that the courts below have rightly decided against the plaintiff'. 11. Insofar as the second question of law is concerned, no doubt, it is true that the first appellate Court has not separately framed the points for determination in the appeal. However, as it is seen that the first appellate Court considered all the points raised before the trial Court and after discussion, concurred with the findings of the trial Court, I do not think that such non-framing of separate points for determination itself would not vitiate the judgment of the appellate Court. Therefore, I find no reason to interfere with the concurrent findings rendered by the courts below. 12. Accordingly, the second appeal is dismissed and the questions of law raised are answered against the appellant/plaintiff. No costs.