- (1.) THIS appeal arises out of a suit instituted by Hans Raj plaintiff-respondent for recovery of Rs. 1175/- from the defendant appellant Charanji Lal.
(2.) IN all, seven water pipes, in two different lots, were sold to the plaintiff; two for Rs. 266/11/-and five for Rs. 603/12/- by the defendant. The purchase price of Rs. 266/11/- for two pipes and Rs. 603/12/- for five pipes was paid to the defendant and receipts Exhibits P. A. and P. B. obtained therefor. Four of these pipes were in transit to Mansa while three were in the custody of the plaintiff in Mansa, when on or about 15th of September, 1951, they were taken possession of by the police as an allegation was made that these were stolen from the Bhakra Canal. Charanji Lal defendant was one of the persons who were prosecuted though he was ultimately discharged by the Magistrate of Mansa. The three pipes which had been recovered from the possession of the plaintiff and four from the Railway Station Mansa were directed to be handed over to the P. W. D. authorities. As the consideration had failed altogether, the plaintiff brought a suit to recover Rs. 870/7/3 and Rs. 304/9/- as intenrest from the defendant.
(3.) ALTHOUGH the trial Judge held that the plaintiff had purchased seven pipes from the defendant for Rs. 807/7/3, he came to the conclusion that the pipes recovered from the possession of the plaintiff were not the same as were sold to him by defendant. In this view of the matter, the suit was dismissed. The District Judge, in appeal however observed and in my opinion, rightly that the trial Judge had not applied his mind at all to the facts which had been presented to him. I need not dwell here on the reasons which have been given by the lower appellate Court in coming to the conclusion that the goods which had been sold to the plaintiff by the defendant were the same as were actually recovered as stolen Property by the police. This finding of fact I readily accept.;