Krishnan, J.

This is an appeal preferred against the judgment in A.S.No.303 to 1985 rendered by a learned single Judge of this court. The original suit O.S.No.29 of 1983 was filed by the appellants against the respondents for realization of Rs.28,219/- as the amount due towards the hire purchase transaction. It is the case of the appellants that they had entered into a hire purchase agreement with the defendants in respect of a Benz goods Vehicle bearing Registration No. KLV 7957 on 1.5.1981 and that the defendants had agreed to pay a sum of Rs.50,820/- in 18 equal installments. Since the defendants did not keep the vehicle in good condition and failed to pay the installments possession was retaken on 24.7.1982. As the defendants did not wipe off the liability notice was issued on 21.12.1982 and the vehicle was sold for a price of Rs.20,000/-. It is for the balance amount due the suit is filed.

2. The defendants would contend that the vehicle was in a good condition and it was seized on 24-7-1982 without any reason. The hire purchase agreement was never terminated and no notice was issued regarding sale. According to them the vehicle would have fetched a value of Rs.90,000/- and that the sale is not valid. It is further contended that the appellants are not entitled to claim any amount.

3. The Principal Sub Judge, Kollam granted a decree in favour of the plaintiffs for the amount claimed. It is against that decision A.S. No.303 of 1985 was filed before this court. The learned single Judge by judgment dated 8.8.1991 allowed the appeal and dismissed the suit. The learned single Judge found that there was no proper notice of sale and that the respondents were never informed about the sale and further that the sale had not been conducted properly. It is the correctness of that decision what is challenged in this appeal.

4. Admittedly Ext.A1 is the hire purchase agreement. As per Ext. A1, the appellants are the owners of the vehicle and the respondents had undertaken to pay Rs.50,820/- in 18 equal installments. Under the terms of Ext.A1 the appellants are entitled to retake the vehicle and defaulted installments and damages, it any, can be claimed from the hirer. It is the case of the appellants that the vehicle was not used in a proper manner and the damage was caused due too reckless manner in which the vehicle was used. As per the agreement the appellants are entitled to recover the arrears due under the hire purchase agreement.

5. As per the stipulation in the agreement the appellants had re-possessed the vehicle. At the same time the hirer is also interested to get the maximum price for the vehicle so that it will reduce his liability, so it is necessary that the vehicle has to be disposed of with notice and knowledge of the respondents. In this case the vehicle is repossessed by seizure on 24.7.1982. though PW1 would depose that notice was sent terminating the hire purchase agreement no scrap of paper is produced to prove the same. According to the respondents in this appeal the vehicle was in a road-worthy condition and it would have detached Rs.90,000/-. The appellants would deny it. Admittedly the vehicle was seized from the roadside and driven to the compound of the appellants. They had not even prepared a mahazer regarding the condition of the vehicle on 24.7.1982. It has to be stated that the sale took place on 22.12.1982. The contention of the appellants is that it was published in Janayogam Daily well in advance. Neither the receipt nor the copy of the paper is produced in this case. The appellants submits that there was only one purchaser and the vehicle was sold for Rs.20,000/-. Strangely no paper is prepared ad kept regarding the sale. All these things are against the ordinary human conduct.

6. Ext.A6 is the copy of the notice alleged to be issued by the appellants. It is date 21.12.1982. Ext. A7 cover which is addressed to the 1st respondent would show that it was posted only on 23.12.1982, i.e. on the