Back
1994 Supreme(Ori) 171
High Court Of Orissa
B. N. BASH,.
TARA CHAND BOID - Appellant
Versus
SHIKAM CHAND BHORA - Respondent
Appeal 286 Of 1964
Decided On : 10/28/1994
P.K.NANDI
The parties cannot, by consent, oust the jurisdiction of a court having territorial jurisdiction under Section 20 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908. The owner of goods let under a hire-purchase agreement cannot enforce any right to recover possession of the goods from the hirer otherwise than in accordance with Section 20 of the Hire-Purchase Act, 1972.
Headnote:
HIRE PURCHASE AGREEMENT - JURISDICTION - OWNERSHIP OF GOODS - RECOVERY OF POSSESSION - SECTION 20 OF THE HIRE-PURCHASE ACT, 1972 - INTERPRETATION AND APPLICATION.
Fact of the Case:
Plaintiff filed a suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendant from interfering with his possession of a truck. The defendant claimed ownership of the truck and alleged that the plaintiff was a hirer under a hire-purchase agreement. The trial court held that the defendant was the owner and the plaintiff was a hirer, but dismissed the suit on the ground of improper valuation. The appellate court upheld the finding of ownership but dismissed the appeal on the ground that the courts at Jaypore had no territorial jurisdiction and that the defendant had the right to seize the truck as per the hire-purchase agreement.
Finding of the Court:
The High Court held that the parties could not, by consent, oust the jurisdiction of a court having territorial jurisdiction under Section 20 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908. It also held that the defendant had no right to seize the truck as the plaintiff had already paid all the instalments under the hire-purchase agreement, even though some of them were paid irregularly. The court set aside the judgment and decree of the appellate court and restored that of the trial court.
Issues: 1. Whether the parties could, by consent, oust the jurisdiction of a court having territorial jurisdiction under Section 20 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908? 2. Whether the defendant had the right to seize the truck as the plaintiff had already paid all the instalments under the hire-purchase agreement, even though some of them were paid irregularly?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that it is not open to the parties by agreement to confer jurisdiction on a court which it does not possess under the Code. The ouster clause can operate as an estoppel against the parties but it cannot deprive the court of its power to do justice. The court would ordinarily have regard to the choice of the parties but where, however, the court whose jurisdiction has been ousted is satisfied that the stipulation would operate harshly, is oppressive in character, inequitable or unfair, for the ends of justice, it can relieve the party of the bargain. The ouster clause can be ignored. 2. The court held that Section 20 of the Hire-Purchase Act, 1972, provides that where the statutory proportion of the hire-purchase price has been paid, the owner shall not enforce any right to recover possession of the goods from the hirer otherwise than in accordance with sub-section (3) or by suit. In this case, the plaintiff had already paid all the instalments under the hire-purchase agreement, even though some of them were paid irregularly. Therefore, the defendant had no right to seize the truck.
Final Decision: The appeal was allowed, the judgment and decree of the appellate court were set aside, and that of the trial court was restored.
( 1 ) THIS appeal by the plaintiff is against the confirming decree in a suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendant from interfering, with the plaintiff's possession of a truck.
( 2 ) SHORTLY stated, the plaintiff's case is that on 26-9-1973 he purchased the truck bearing, No. A. P. S. 2707 corresponding to the registration No. O. R. K. 3031 of the erstwhile district of Koraput in Orissa for a sum of Rs. 71,267. 56 from M/s. Ramadas Motor Transport (Private) Limited, Kakinada in the State of Andhra Pradesh. As he had no sufficient fund, he approached the defendant who is a Financier and Professional Money Lender to advance him loan for the purchase of the said truck and the defendant advance a sum of Rs. 60,000/ - charging Rs. 15, 400/- towards interest. The entire amount of Rs. 75,400/- was agreed to be liquidated in thirty monthly instalment of Rs. 2,600/ -, the first instalment commencing from 26-11-1973. The defendant took the signature of the plaintiff in some blank documents and retained them with him. As per the agreement, although the plaintiff paid all the instalments, he received a notice from the defendant on 1-10-1976 calling, upon him to pay a sum of Rs. 12,483 / - towards extra hire charges and on 20-11-1979 one Rashid Khan an employee of the came to Jeypore and threatened to seize the truck. Such action on the part of the defendant led the plaintiff to file the suit for the relief aforestated.
( 3 ) THE defendant denied the ownership of the plaintiff over the truck in question and also the transaction concerning money to be a loan. According to him, he paid Rs. 70,794. 34 paise to M/s. Ramdas Motor Transport (Private) Limited on 26-5-1973 for purchase of the truck in question and the truck was given on hire to the plaintiff under the hire purchase agreement on 26-9-1973. The plaintiff possessed the truck as hirer of the defendant as per terms of the hire purchase agreement and not as owner thereof and agreed to pay Rs. 2,600/- per month as hire charges commencing from 26-11-1973. It was further agreed that if the plaintiff would fulfil the conditions as laid down in the hire-purchase agreement, he could exercise the option to become the owner of the said vehicle. The plaintiff also undertook to pay Re. 1/ - per Rs. 1,000/ - per day as extra charge for the delay in payment of monthly instalments and also costs or other charges for recovery of the hire charges. As there was delay in payment of the monthly instalments, the defendant sent a letter to the plaintiff demanding payment of Rs. 12,483/- and in reply the plaintiff having (sic) his liability to pay the said amount, the defendant was entitled to seize the truck as per the hire-purchase agreement. It was also planned that the Courts at Jaypore had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit as per clause (29) of the hire-purchase agreement and that the suit was not property valued.
( 4 ) THE plaintiff examined two witnesses including himself to prove his case, besides relying on some documents marked Exts. 1 to 21. On the other hand, the defendant examined his manager to prove his case, besides relying on some documents marked Exts. A and B series. On a consideration of the evidence, the trial court held that the truck in question had been purchased on hirepurchase agreement and while the defendant was the owner, the plaintiff was the hirer. It was also found by it that the claim of the defendant was true and not barred by limitation but it was held that the suit was not properly valued. Accordingly, the suit was dismissed. In appeal, the learned Addl. District Judge reversed the finding of the trial Court in the matter of valuation of the suit and come to hold that the relief of injunction has been correctly valued for the purpose of court-fees and jurisdiction. He concurred with the finding of the trial court that the defendant was the owner of the truck and the plaintiff was a hirer from him. Notwithstanding all these findings, he dismissed the a
