MODI, J.—This is a plaintiffs second appeal in a suit for damages for wrongful attachment which was partly decreed by the trial court but on appeal dismissed in toto by the learned Civil Judge, Udaipur.

2. It is common ground between the parties that the defendant Amolakchand had obtained a money decree against plaintiff appellant No. 3 Purshottam and in execution of that decree, he applied for attachment of motor bus No.RJY 293 (the previous number being 706) on the allegation that it was the exclusive property of the latter. This application was made on the 16th September, 1952, and attachment was ordered and effected accordingly under O. 21 R. 30 C. P. C. on the next following date, that is the 17th September, 1952. It may be mentioned that this bus was lying at the time in the work-shop of P. W. 2 Bhura-lal, a motor mechanic, as the vehicle needed some repairs. Thereupon, the plaintiff appellant Narainlal raised an objection before the executing court on the 21st October, 1952. That objection has not been brought on this record; but it is admitted before me that his case was that he was a co-owner of the bus to the extent of a half share therein. Defendant Amolakchand admitted the force of this objection and consequently the executing court removed the attachment under O. 21 r. 30 and instead imposed a fresh attachment under O. 21 r. 47 C. P. C. to the extent of the half share of Purushottam in the bus in question. This modified attachment was. ordered on the 29th November, 1952, that is, after 72 days of the initial seizure. Consequently the plaintiffs appellants namely Narainlal, the Taxi Motor Association Nathdwara and Purushottam instituted the suit, out of which this appeal arises, for recovery of damages amounting to Rs. 2,000/- on account of the wrongful attachment. It may be pointed out that the Taxi Motor Association Nathdwara also sued as a plaintiff because as disclosed in the plaint, the bus stood registered in the name of the Taxi Motor Association Nathdwara at the date of the suit, the said association having been registered under the Societies Registration Act (No. VII) of 1941 of the former State of Mewar, some time in 1946. It was also mentioned in the plaint that this bus stood in the name of plaintiffs Nos. 1 and 3 that is, Narainlal and Purushottam on the records of the Taxi Motor Association, Nathdwara, and that the profit arising out of the running thereof was to go to them in equal shares.

3. The defendant resisted the suit. His case, put briefly, was that the bus really belonged to Purushottam and that its transfer to the Taxi Motor Association Nathdwara in the manner alleged by the said plaintiffs was little more than a device to defeat the creditors. It was also contended that the registration certificate of the bus had been deposited in the office of the Regional Transport Officer concerned some time in the month of June, 1942, and it remained so deposited upto January, 1953, and, therefore, it could not have been possible for any of the plaintiffs to run the bus during that period and no damage whatsoever was caused to them. It was also contended that if, on the allegations made in the plaint, the ownership of the bus stood transferred in the name of the Taxi Motor Association Nathdwara, then the plaintiffs Nos. 1 and 3 had no right to bring the suit as they had no interest subsisting in the bus; and the suit, as brought on behalf of the said Association, was also not properly brought inasmuch as there was nothing to show that the Secretary who had signed the plaint on behalf of the Association had been authorised by any resolution of it to do so.

4. The learned Munsiff Magistrate Mavli who tried the suit held against the defendant on all the aforesaid contentions and decreed the plaintiffs suit to the extent of Rs. 1000/- as damages. The defendant then went in appeal to the Civil Judge, Udaipur. The learned Civil Judge allowed the appeal and dismissed the suit. The findings of the learned Judge in

Click Here to Read the rest of this document