TEKUMALLA RAMA RAO Vs. DURGA SURYANARAYANA
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
TEKUMALLA RAMA RAO
Click here to view full judgement.
Narasimham, J. -
(1.) The plaintiff is the appellant herein, the Second Appeal arises out of a suit filed for enforcing the transfer of a route permit of a Bus (A.D.S. 471) plying on the route line from Vizianagaram to Chodavaram, pursuant to an agreement in that behalf entered into by the plaintiff and the first defendant on 3-12-1955. The suit was dismissed by the Courts below and that is how the appeal arises. The following are the undisputed, facts which require to be noticed here to appreciate the point Involved in this case, viz., the enforceability of such an agreement to transfer a route permit in respect of the Bus. (A.D.S. 471).
(2.) The plaintiff (hereinafter referred to as the appellant) and the first defendant (hereinafter referred to as the respondent) were partners In the business of running stage carriage under the name and style of "Sri Sad guru Bus Service". The respondent held the route permit. A.D.S. 471 was one of the buses forming partnership property. While so, a creditor of the respondent filed " suit against him and attached the buses. That suit was compromised. Subsequent thereto, the partnership of running the stage carriages came to be dissolved by a deed of dissolution dated 3-12-1955, Ex. A-4. Under the terms of the said deed of dissolution, the appellant shall be the owner of the bus in question and run the said bus on the route line from Vizianagaram to Chodavaram Via. Saroalkot with all rights thereto, and the respondent shall have no right thereto. The deed recites that the appellant has taken possession of the bus, A.D.S. 471. Contemporaneously, the respondent executed a letter, Ex. A-5, in favour of the appellant. what is termed a letter of agreement or undertaking stating inter alia that Inasmuch as the route permit and the registration certificate pertaining to the Bus (A.D.S. 471) was standing in the respondents came, he would execute the document which has to, for effecting the transfer of the permit and the registration certificate on demand by the appellant. The transfers not having been effected as undertaken by the respondent, the appellant brought this action to enforce the transfer undertaken by the respondent. In the suit he prayed for a mandatory injunction, directing the respondent to sign the applications for transfer of the permit and the registration certificate relating to the Bus, A.D.S. 471.
(3.) The respondent raised various pleas in defence, but the one which found favour with the Courts below was that the agreement was void and unenforceable as contravening Section 59 (1) of the Motor Vehicles Act (Act IV of 1939) and the rules made thereunder.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.