MODI, J.—This is a second appeal by the plaintiff Champalal against the judgment and decree of the District Judge, Bikaner, dated 21-1-67, affirming the decree of the Civil Judge, Ratangarh, dismissing the suit.

2. The dispute relates to the recovery of a jeep car bearing registration No. RJK 1120 or its price amounting to Rs. 5000/.

3. The defendant respondant No. 2 Jiwanram is the uncle of the defendant-respondent No. 1 Ramchander. The plaintiff-appellant is a resident of Bhinasar, district Bikaner, whereas the defendant-respondents are the residents of Hanuman-garh, district Garganagar. Both the towns Bhinasar & Hanumangarh, were formerly the parts of the erstwhile State of Bikaner which subsequently merged into the State of Rajasthan. The plaintiff and the defendant Ramchander knew each other very well from the times of the erstwhile State of Bikaner.

4. The plaintiff came with the case that the defendant Ramchander was in need of a jeep car and since he knew that the plaintiff owned and possessed jeep-car No. RJK 1120, he sent his uncle Jiwanram to bring the plaintiffs jeep-car for sometime for his use as amanat. At the request of Jiwanram on behalf of Ramchander, the plaintiff delivered the said vehicle to Jiwanram on the condition that the said vehicle would be returned to the plaintiff as and when demanded by him. The jeep car was taken away by Jiwanram from Binasar on 2-12-56. The plaintiff alleged that the certificate of registration of jeep-car No. RJK 1120 stood in his name and he continued to pay Government tax of it. The plaintiff further alleged that he demanded return of his jee-car on No. 18-1-62 but the defendant Ramchander refused to do so. The plaintiff therefore instituted the present suit on 25-10-62, that is, after about five years and ten months from 2-12 56 for the recovery of the jeep-car No. RJK 1120 or its price amounting to Rs. 5,000. Both the defendants, namely, Ramchander and Jiwanram filed separate written statements. They traversed all material allegations made in the plaint. Both the defendants denied the plaintiffs ownership to the jeep-car RJK 1120. They also denied delivery of the jeep-car by the plaintiff to Jiwanram as amanat at the request of Ramchander on the condition that it would be returned when demanded by the plaintiff. They also denied that the said vehicle was demand-ed by the plaintiff on 18-1-62. Defendant Ramchander further pleaded that he purchased the jeep car RJK 1120 in the year 1958 from one Bahadur Singh and since then he has been depositing its tax etc. It was also pleaded that the suit was barred by limitation and was also not triable by the Civil Judge, Ratangarh. On the pleadings of the parties, the trial court framed the following issues:—

^^¼1½ D;k izfroknh ua- 1 us tfj;s thoujke izfroknh ua- 2 thi vkj- ts- ds- 1120 eqruknk oknh ls vekur fnukad 2-12-56 dks Hkhuklj ls eaxkbZA

¼2½ D;k thi eqruktk feyfd;r oknh gSA

¼3½ D;k vki eqruktk dh dher 5000@& :i;s gSA ih

¼4½ D;k nkok vUrj fe;kn gSA

¼5½ vk;k vnkyr gktk dks v[fr;kj lekvr eqdnek gktk gSA

¼6½ nknjlh^^

On consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced by the parties, the trial court recorded findings on issues Nos. 1 and 2 against the plaintiff. The trial court held that the plaintiff has failed to prove that the jeep-car No. RJK 1120 was owned by him and that it was delivered by him to Ramchander through Jiwanram as amanat on 2-12 56. As regards the price of the jeep-car, the trial Court held that the plaintiff has failed to prove that he purchased the jee-pear for Rs. 5000. It has further held that it stands proved that Ramchander purchased the jeep-car from Bahadursingh for Rs 3500. He therefore held that the price of the jeep-car was Rs. 3500. Dealing with issue No. 4, the trial court held that the suit was governed by Art. 49 of the Indian Limitation Act, 1908 and since the jeep-car was to be returned after general elections which ended in February 1957, the suit was barred by time, for, the wrongful possessi

Click Here to Read the rest of this document