V. S. DESHPANDE, J.

( 1 ) THE most important question in this appeal is whether on a proper construction of the proviso to section 34 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 (hereinafter called the Act)-corresponding to section 42 of the Specific Relief Act, 1877 the suit for declaration and injunction by the plaintiff respondent No. 1 is maintainable.

( 2 ) THE suit was filed on 13-2-1963, the same day when the Act came into force. The plaintiff alleged that he was the owner of a motor truck hired from him by Respondent 2 Krishan Lal Jaggi. The appellant No. 1. however, claimed to be the owner of the truck and purported to hire it out to respondent No. 2 who took it away to Bihar. When the plaintiff tried to take back possession of the truck from appellant No. 2, the police intervened and investigated into a complaint of theft by appellant No. 2. During the investigation the Magistrate ordered the motor truck to be kept with the plaintiff-respondent No. 1 as superdar (custodian of the Court ). On an appeal by appellant No. 2, however, the High Court of Patna set aside the order of the Magistrate and ordered that the motor truck should be kept with the appellant No. 2 also as a superdar (

Click Here to Read the rest of this document