Back
2006 Supreme(AP) 1452
2007 (3) ALD 215
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT
HYDERABAD
L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J.
Rayudu Appa Rao and others - - Appellants.
Vs.
Rayudu Chantibabu and others - - Respondents.
SA No.1163 of 2004
Decided on 30th November, 2006
Advocates Appeared:
J. Prabhakar, Advocate for the Appellants;
(Mrs.) N.(P) Anjana Devi, Counsel for the Respondent No.1.
Headnote:
Motor Vehicles Act 1998 - Section 2 - grant a decree for possession – Prayed for declaration of title - Counsel submits that Exs.A-1 and A-2 are fabricated, and even assuming that they are proved to be genuine, occasion to grant a decree for possession of vehicle, would have arisen, if only respondent has otherwise become owner of the said vehicle - submits that if Exs.A-1 and A-2 were sufficient to confer ownership upon respondent, transfer of vehicle must have already taken place in favour of the respondent - Counsel submits that there are several inconsistencies, in facts pleaded and relief claimed by respondent – Held, A close perusal of the judgments of the Courts below, reveals that matter was not examined from the proper perspective - relief granted in favour of the respondent needs to be modified, in such a way, that it accords with the provisions of the Act, and avoids incompatibility of the relief claimed by the respondent - As observed earlier, on one hand, a declaration was sought to the effect that the respondent is the owner, and on the other hand, a prayer was made to the effect that the appellants must be compelled through an injunction, to sign necessary forms for transfer of the vehicle in favour of the respondent. In broad terms, it can be said that it resembled a suit, where relief of declaration of title, on the one hand, and specific performance of agreement of sale, on the other hand, are prayed, at one and the same time - Modifying the decree granted by the trial Court, and upheld by the lower appellate Court - Second appeal is partly allowed
2. In his suit, the respondent pleaded that he entered into an agreement of sale (Ex.A-1), with the father of the 1st appellant, by name Rayudu Ganganna on 12-5-1989, for purchase of the tractor, for a consideration of Rs.85,000/-, and on the same day, a sum of Rs.30,000/- was paid. It was alleged that the vendor was permitted to retain the possession of the tractor, as a lessee, for a period of two years, and adjust a sum of Rs.45,000/-, as charges for it, and that the possession of the tractor was to be delivered to the respondent, on expiry of two years, on payment of balance of Rs.1 0,000/-. He pleaded that on 28-5-1992, the balance of Rs.10,000/- was paid, and delivery of possession of the tractor, as well as the Registration Certificate Book was handed over to him, under a document executed on the same day, marked as EX.A-2.
3. Respondent contended that after delivering possession of the tractor, Ganganna died on 24-6-1992, while undergoing treatment, and in that view of the matter, the transfer of the registration could not take place immediately. The 1st appellant is said to have stealthily removed the tractor from the custody of the respondent on 17-7-1992, and though a police complaint was given on the same day, the 1st appellant managed them, and thereby, the possession could not be recovered. The respondent has also claimed the relief of damages, at the rate of Rs.200/- per day, and a direction to the appellants, to sign the necessary papers for effecting transfer of the vehicle. The alternative prayer of refund of Rs.85,000/- was also made.
4. On behalf of the appellants, a written statement was filed. It was pleaded that taking advantage of the strained relations between the 1st appellant and his father Ganganna, the respondent, who is an agnate, had brought into existence Exs.A-1 and A-2, with a view to takeaway the tractor. According to them, the 1st respondent took away the tractor when the family was in bereavement, on account of the death of Ganganna, and the possession thereof, was recovered by invoking the procedure under the law. It is also alleged that the respondent did not become the owner of the vehicle and Exs.A-1 and A-2 were fabricated. It was urged that at a time, when EX.A-2 was said to have been executed, Ganganna was under treatment with DW-2.
5. The trial Court decreed the suit, through judgment dated 27-4-1998. It was held that the respondent is the owner of the tractor, and the appellants were directed to deliver the possession of the same, within two months from the date of decree. The appellants were directed to pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- towards mesne profits, and the respondent was permitted to file a separate application for ascertaining the future profits. A further direction was issued to the appellants, to execute necessary documents relating to transfer of the tractor, in the name of the respondent. The appellants filed A.S. No.78 of 1998, in the Court of IV Additional District Judge, East Godavari, at Kakinada, challenging the decree and judgment passed by the trial Court. The appeal was dismissed on 23-10-2003. Hence, this second appeal.
6. Sri J. Prabhakar, learned Counsel for the appellants, submits that though the provisions of the Sale of Goods Act apply to the sale of motor vehicles also, the respondent can be declared as owner, if only he is in possession of the vehicle, as provided for under sub-section (30) of
