S.N.MODI, J. - (1.) THIS is a second appeal by the plaintiff Champalal against the judgment and decree of the District Judge, Bikaner, dated 21 -1 -1967, affirming the decree of the Civil Judge, Ratangarh, dismissing the suit.
(2.) THE dispute relates to the recovery of a jeep car bearing registration No. RJK 1120 or its price amounting to Rs. 5,000. The defendant -respondent No. 2 Jiwanram is the uncle of the defendant -respondent No. 1 Ramchander. The plaintiff -appellant is a resident of Bhinasar, district Bikaner, whereas the defendant -respondents are the residents of Hanumangarh, district Ganganagar. Both the towns Bhinasar and Hanumangarh, were formerly the parts of the erstwhile State of Bikaner which subsequently merged into the State of Rajasthan. The plaintiff and the defendant Ramchander knew each other very well from the times of the erstwhile State oi Bikaner. The plaintiff came with the case that the defendant Ramchander was in need of a jeep car and since he knew that the plaintiff owned and possessed jeep -car No. RJK 1120, he sent his uncle Jiwanram to bring the plaintiff's jeep -car for sometime for his use as 'amanat'. At the request of Jiwanram on behalf of Ramchander, the plaintiff delivered the said vehicle to Jiwanram on the condition that the said vehicle would be returned to the plaintiff as and when demanded by him. The jeep -car was taken away by Jiwanram from Bhinasar on 2 -12 -1956. The plaintiff alleged that the certificate of registration of jeep -car No. RJK 1120 stood in his name and he continued to pay government tax of it. The plaintiff further alleged that he demanded return of his jeep -car on 18 -1 -1962 but the defendant Ramchander refused to do so. The plaintiff therefore instituted the present suit on 25 -10 -1962, that is, after about five years and ten months from 2 -12 -1956 for the recovery of the jeep -car RJK 1120 or its price amounting to Rs. 5,000/ -. Both the defendants, namely, Ramchander and Jiwanram filed separate written statements. They traversed all material allegations made in the plaint. Both the defendants denied the plaintiff's ownership to the jeep -car RJK 1120. They also denied delivery of the jeep -car by the plaintiff to Jiwanram as 'amanat' at the request of Ramchander on the condition that it would be returned when demanded by the plaintiff. They also denied that the said vehicle was demanded by the plaintiff on 18 -1 -1962. Defendant Ramchander further pleaded that he purchased the jeep -car RJK 1120 in the year 1958 from one Bahadur Singh and since then he has been depositing its tax etc. It was also pleaded that the suit was barred by limitation and was also not triable by the Civil Judge, Ratangarh. On the pleadings of the parties, the trial Court framed the following issues: - - .........[vernacular ommited text]........... On consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced by the parties, the trial court recorded findings on issues Nos. 1 and 2 against the plaintiff. The trial court held that the plaintiff has failed to prove that the jeep -car No. RJK 1120 was owned by him and that it was delivered by him to Ramchander through Jiwanram as 'amanat' on 2 -12 -1956. As regards the price of the jeep -car, the trial court held that the plaintiff has failed to prove that he purchased the jeep -car for Rs. 5,000. It has further held that it stands proved that Ramchander purchased the jeep -car from Bahadursingh for Rupees 3,500. He therefore held that the price of the jeep -car was Rs. 3,500. Dealing with issue No. 4, the trial court held that the suit was governed by Article 49 of the Indian Limitation Act, 1908 and since the jeep -car was to be returned after general elections which ended in February 1957, the suit was barred by time, for, the wrongful possession of the defendant commenced from February 1957 and the suit was filed long after the expiry of three years from February 1957. Regarding issue No. 5 relating to the jurisdiction, the learned Civil Judge held that he had jurisdiction to try the case. On the aforesaid findings, the learned Civil Judge dismissed the suit. On appeal by the plaintiff, the learned District Judge affirmed all the findings arrived at by the trial court and dismissed the appeal. Hence this second appeal by the plaintiff.
(3.) MR . H.P. Gupta, the learned advocate for the plaintiff -appellant has strongly criticised the judgment of the learned District Judge on the question of the plaintiff's title over the jeep -car RJK 1120. His foremost grievance is that the learned District Judge did not at all refer to very important evidence of Omprakash P. W. 7, a clerk of the transport department, who gave his statement on the basis of the record of the transport department. It is argued that from his statement it stands proved that the registration of the jeep -car RJK 1120 was transferred in the name of the plaintiff on 24 -10 -1956 and thereafter it stood in the name of the plaintiff and was not transferred in the name of any other person. The learned counsel further urges that the person in whose favour the certificate of registration stands would be the owner thereof. I find considerable force in the above contention.;