LODHA ,J.—The, facts giving rise to this second appeal by the defendant No. 1 M/s United Motors of Rajasthan may be stated as follows:

On 29-4-1954 at about 10.30 A. M defendant No. 3 Hargovind was driving motor bus No.RJL 306 on Sawai Mansingh Hospital Road in the city of Jaipur and the plaintiff was coming on a bicycle from the opposite direction. It is alleged that the right mudguard of the bus came in contact with the left knee of the plaintiff as a result of which the patela of the plaintiff was broken to pieces and certain other in juries were also received by him on his head and other parts of the body. Consequently, the plaintiff filed the present suit on 27th April, 1955 in the Court of Civil Judge, Jaipur claiming damages to the tune of Rs. 3400/- against defendant No. 1 M/s United Motors of Rajasthan, defendant No 2 M/s Shanker Bus Service, Jaipur and defendant No. 3 Hargovind driver. The plaintiffs case was that the bus by which the accident was caused was registered in the name of the defendant No. 1 who was consequently liable for payment of the damages on account of rash and negligent driving by their servant Hargovind. Alternatively the decree was claimed on the ground of vicarious liability against the defendant No. 2 as in reply to the notice served by the plaintiff on defendant No. 1, the latter had replied that the bus had been sold by them to defendant No. 2 as far back as on 7-8-1952. Thus to be on safe side besides the driver the plaintiff claimed decree for damages on the ground of vicarious liability either against defendant No. 1 in whose name the vehicle was registered or in the alternative against defendant No. 2, in case the Court found that the owner of the vehicle on the date of the accident was defendant No. 2.

2. The suit was resisted by all the defendants who filed separate written statements. A notice of the suit was also given to the Motor and General Insurance Co. Ltd., under sec. 96(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (which will hereinafter be called the Act), but the Insurance Company did not contest the suit.

3. After recording the evidence produced by the parties the trial court decreed the suit for Rs. 3367/- against the defendants Nos. 1 and 3 and also awarded pendente lite and future interest at the rate of /6/- % per cent per mensem on the aforesaid amount.

4. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree of the trial court the United Motors of Rajasthan preferred an appeal in the Court of District Judge, Jaipur City who confirmed the decree of the trial court. Consequently, the United Motors of Rajasthan has come in second appeal to this Court.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant has urged that the courts below have made out a new case for the plaintiff when they held that the sale of the bus in question by the defendant-appellant to defendant No. 2 Shanker Bus Service was illegal. He has submitted that the alleged sale of the bus has been fully proved to have taken place oh 7-8-52, a little less than two years before the date of the acci-dent, and the mere fact that the certificate of registration of the vehicle and the permit of the route on which the vehicle was being plied at the time of the accident stood in the name of the appellant, did not in any effect the vesting of the owner ship of the vehicle in the purchaser M/s Shanker Bus Service. He has also argued that the driver Hargovind was at any rate not in the employ of the appellant and was consequently not under their control, and was consequently not under their control, and therefore, the vicarious liability for damages on account of the accident alleged to have been caused by the driver Hargovind cannot be fastened on the appellant. .

6. The two relevant issues framed by the trial court on the pleadings of the parties are these:

"3. Whether the bus was sold before the accident by the defendant No. 1 to the defendant No. 2?

4. Whether the driver defendant No. 3 was in the service of the United Motors of Rajasthan or of Shanker Bus Ser

Click Here to Read the rest of this document