( 1 ) THE undisputed facts are that a tempo vehicle bearing Registration No. CAA 3842 was purchased by the plaintiff-appellant under a hire-purchase agreement with respondent-1 Canara Bank having taken a loan of Rs. 56,000/ -. The said loan with interest thereon was discharged by the time the suit came to be filed and the plaintiff, according to the Bank, still owed Rs. 3,694-90 towards seizure charges, ground rent charges and other expenses. The said vehicle was seized on 26-11-1988 by respondent-1 Bank towards realisation of the amount due to it under the hirepurcha. se agreement. Plaintiff- appellant filed the suit for declaration that the seizure of the vehicle was withoul jurisdiction, void and for consequential orders for redelivcry of the vehicle and further consequential order under Section 20 of the Hirepurchase Act being enforced.

( 2 ) IT is undisputed that during the pen dencyof the suit, the entire loan as aforesaid due under the hire purchase agreement came to be repaid. In the written statement, however, first defendant-Bank contended that after the partnership firm came into existence, the plaintiff as one of the partners and other partners were liable