BIJAY KUMAR NAYAK Vs. BALARAM NAYAK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal at the instance of the defendant against the judgment and decree passed by the Civil Judge (Sr. Division), (the then Subordinate Judge) Sonepur in T.S. No. 35 of 1987 on its file. The suit was filed by the respondent-plaintiff seeking declaration that the suit truck bearing Registration No. ORU-5767 belong to the plaintiff. Learned Civil Judge (Sr. Dvn.) has decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiff, vide the impugned judgment and decree.

(2.) The case of the plaint in the Court below is that the suit truck originally belonged to the partnership firm of one Abhaya Mohanty (P.W.2) and Natabar Mohanty (P.W.I) which was purchased by the plaintiff in the name of defendant-appellant on consideration of Rs. 60,000/- payable in four equal instalments within a period from 2-2-1977 to 2-10-1980. After payment of the consideration money, on the request of the plaintiff the suit truck was transferred in the name of the defendant-appellant, who was the foster son of the plaintiff. But after registration of the same, as the relationship between the plaintiff and the defendant became strain, the defendant made a claim over the suit truck and also went to the extent of filing criminal cases against the plaintiff with regard to the ownership of the truck. Since the truck was purchased by the plaintiff and the same was registered in his name, the defendant has no manner of right and interest over the same, as such his claim of ownership of the truck was unfounded. So the plaintiff having no alternative, filed the suit seeking declaration that the suit truck belonged to him.

(3.) Defendant appeared in this case and countered the said claim of the plaintiff to be unfounded and without any basis. It is the further case of the defendant that the defendant is the adopted son of the plaintiff, who had no male issue. The defendant was brought from his natural parents on adoption by the plaintiff in the year 1968 and the palintiff thereafter reared the defendant as his son. But in the year 1980 the relationship between the plaintiff and defendant became strain and then the life of the defendant became unsecured in the family of the plaintiff. Taking pity on such condition of the defendant his natural father, brother and maternal uncle gave Rs. 75,000/- to him. Defendant paid the same to RW. 1 and purchased the truck from him and thereafter by managing the truck himself he used to earn his livelihood. The ownership of the truck has also been changed in the name of the defendant by its earlier registered owner. The plaintiff as such is not the owner of the truck in question and as such his claim was unfounded.