SHYAM SUNDER BYAS, J. - (1.) THIS civil second appeal has been preferred by the plaintiff who won his suit in the trial court but lost it in the first appellate court.
(2.) THE deceased -plaintiff, who is now represented in this appeal by his legal representatives, instituted a suit for perpetual prohibitory injunction and the recovery of a sum of Rs. 1050/ - against the defendant State and its Taxation Officer in the Court of Munsif, Udaipur on March 25, 1969. The case set -up in the plaint is that he was the owner of a light motor vehicle (jeep) No. RJT 69. The registration of the vehicle stood in his name and he had paid a sum of Rs. 100/ - as road -tax at rate of Rs. 25/ -per seat for the year 1968 -69. On December 26, 1969 when the jeep was coming from Nath -dwara to Udaipur, it was checked and inspected by the Transport Inspector. The jeep was then fitted with a compressure. The Inspector seized the vehicle on the ground that it was used as a private carrier. The plaintiff should have paid a sum of Rs. 1112/ per year as the tax in accordance with the provisions of Schedule IV Part I of the Rajasthan Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1951 (here in after to be referred as 'the Act'). The plaintiff contended before the Taxation Officer that the jeep was never used as good vehicle or a private carrier. It was, therefore, wrongly seized and handed over to the police. The contention was rejected. The plaintiff, per force, had to pay a sum of Rs. 650/ - as the tax and a sum of Rs. 50/ - as penalty -thus, a sum of Rs. 700/ in total to the State Government. The jeep was thereafter released. It was urged in the plaint that the collection of the amount of Rs. 700/ -from him under the Act by the Taxation Officer was illegal and unauthorised. He served a notice under Section 80, CPC, on the defendants to redress his grievance, but with no success. The plaintiff, therefore, brought the suit and claimed the following reliefs: (1) refund of Rs. 700/ - which were charged from him by the defendants; (2) Rs. 350/ -as compensation for the illegal detention of the vehicle : and (3) perpetual prohibitory injunction restraining the defendants to collect the tax from him treating the jeep as a good vehicle. The suit was resisted by the defendants. According to their defence, the plaintiff was using the jeep as a goods vehicle and private carrier. He was, therefore, required to pay tax in accordance with the provisions of Schedule IV, Part I of the Act, as it then stood in 1968 -69. The jurisdiction of the Civil Court was challenged on the ground that the dispute involved was not of a civil nature. The learned Munsif framed the necessary issues and recorded the evidence of the parties. On the conclusion of the trial, the learned Munsif recorded his findings as under: (a) that the collection of the amount of Rs. 700/ - from the plaintiff by the defendants was illegal ; (b) the seizure of the vehicle was unauthorised ; (c) the plaintiff was not entitled to any damages; and (d) the suit was cognizable by a civil court. The suit was accordingly decided in the terms prayed for by the plaintiff except to the extent of Rs. 350/ -. The defendants went in appeal which was heard and decided by the learned Civil Judge, Udaipur. The Civil Judge, by his judgment and decree dated March 16, 1974 allowed the defendants appeal and dismissed the plaintiff's suit. The learned Civil Judge took the view that the jeep was used as a goods vehicle because it was found fitted with a compressure. The plaintiff was, therefore, required to pay the tax in accordance with the provisions of Schedule IV Part I of the Act. Aggrieved against the said judgment and decree of the first appellate court, the plaintiff has come -up in appeal.
(3.) I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and gone through the record carefully.;