Ramaprasada Rao, J.- The plaintiffs are the appellants. The defendant was a transport operator. He had two route permits covering Cuddalore to Ulundurpet and Cuddalore to Kachirapalayam, and was plying MDY 3870 and MDY 4396 respectively on the above routes. He sought financial assistance from the plaintiffs. After discussions the plaintiffs, under Exhibit A-l, dated 14th May, 1964, entered into a sale agreement in respect of the bus MDY 3870 for a consideration of Rs. 40,000. Under Exhibit A-1 it was agreed that the plaintiffs should take delivery of the bus from the defendant after paying the amounts due under hire purchase to one Srimathi Nani Kavar Bai. The defendant agreed to sign the necessary records for transferring the registration certificate of the vehicle and also seek for the transfer of the permit in favour of the plaintiffs. But immediately after entering into the agreement the plaintiffs understood that there was some dispute regarding the route permit Cuddalore to Ulunderpet for which purpose MDY 3870 was utilised. Therefore, on the next day a second agreement Exhibit A-2, dated 15th May, 1964 was entered into in supersession of the first agreement Exhibit A-1. Unde

Click Here to Read the rest of this document