MODI, J.—This is a defendants appeal and arises out of a suit for the recovery of Rs. 2520.

2. The plaintiff-respondent Nasir Mohd. Khan was the owner of a truck bearing registration No. RJL 4660. He sold this truck to the defendant-appellant on 15-10-64 for Rs. 8000/- and handed over its possession to the defendant. An agreement in that connection was executed between the parties which is Ex. 1 on the record. Under the terms of the agreement, all the taxes pertaining to the truck for the period prior to 15-10-64 were to be paid by the plaintiffs and the taxes pertaining to the period subsequent to 15-10-64 were to be paid by the defendant. The Sales Tax Officer, Tonk, realised Rs. 2220/- on 11-3-68 and Rs. 300/- on 13-3-68 from the plaintiff on account of goods-tax and penalty in respect of the said truck. The details of the goods-tax and penalty are as follows.

1. Rs. 60/- as penalty for the period from October 1964 to March 1965.

2. Rs. 300/- as penalty for the period from 1-4-65 to 31-3-66.

3. Rs. 1080/- as goods-tax for the period from 1-4-66 to 31-3-67.

4. Rs. 1080/- as goods-tax for the period from 1-4-67 to 31-3-68.

Rs. 2520/- Total

It was alleged by the plaintiff that as per agreement the responsibility for the payment of the aforesaid sum of Rs. 2520/- was on the defendant and since the plaintiff had to pay the amount, he was entitled to recover the same from the defendant. The plaintiff also sent a notice to the defendant for payment of Rs. 2520/- but the defendant renounced his liability. The plaintiff therefore filed the present suit for the recovery of Rs. 2520/- from the defendant.

3. The defendant in his written statement admitted having purchased the truck from the plaintiff for Rs. 8000/- and also that the truck was handed over to him on 15-10-64 as alleged by the plaintiff. He also admitted having executed the agreement Ex. 1. He however pleaded that since it was the responsibility of the plaintiff to make an application to the registering authority for entering his name as transferee of the truck in the registration certificate, he was not liable to the suit amount. He further pleaded that at the initiative of the plaintiff he sold the truck to one Abdul Mazid and therefore the responsibility lay upon Abdul Mazid to pay the suit amount. The trial court after framing issues and recording evidence held that the sum of Rs. 2520/- was deposited by the plaintiff as mentioned by him. It further held that in view of the terms of the agreement Ex. 1 the defendant was liable to pay the amount of goods-tax and penalty for the period subsequent to 15-10-64. As regards the plea of the defendant that he had sold the truck to Abdul Mazid on 2-9-66, the trial court held that the plaintiff had no hand in the sale of the truck to Abdul Mazid and in any case the defendant was not absolved from the liability of payment of the tax for the period subsequent to 15-10-64. The trial court accordingly decreed the suit.

4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record of the case. There is no substance in this appeal and it is liable to be dismissed.

5. It is admitted by the defendant in his written statement as well as in his deposition as DW-1 that he had undertaken the liability to pay all the taxes pertaining to the truck for the period subsequent to 15-10-64. It is further clear from the statement of PW-2 Sujaur Rehman Khan who is an employee in the Commercial Taxes Department, Tonk, that until the registering authority entered the name of the defendant as transferee of the truck in the registration certificate, the liability for payment of all the taxes" in respect of the truck lay on the plaintiff. He has further deposed that in case the plaintiff failed to deposit the amount, the same would have been recovered by attachment of his property. In these circumstances, there was no way out for the plaintiff but to deposit the amount and if he did so, he is liable to be reimbursed by the defendant under the terms

Click Here to Read the rest of this document