PANNA LAL Vs. CHAND MAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a plaintiff's appeal by special leave and is directed against the judgment of the High Court which upheld the judgment of the Courts below dismissing the plaintiff's suit for recovery of Rs.6,800/-. The facts of the case lie within a very narrow compass and have been detailed in the judgment of the Courts below. It appears that Manak Chand was the owner of a lorry No. AJM 455 and has also the route permit in his name. On 17th February, 1956 Manak Chand sold the route permit and the lorry of Lalchand and Tarachand for a sum of Rs.4,251/-. Subsequently, the purchasers Lalchand and Tarachand, original defendants, sold the lorry to the plaintiff Panna Lal on 24th December, 1956. The findings of facts recorded by the Courts below are that after the sale both by Manak Chand to Lalchand and Tarachand and by Lalchand and Tarachand to the plaintiff, the lorry as also the registration paper thereof were delivered to the appellant purchaser and thus title passed to him. As, however the plaintiff did not choose to move the Registering Authority for transfer of registration of the lorry in his name, the name of the original owner Manak Chand continued to remain in the papers of the registering authority under the Motor Vehicles Act. The plaintiff issued notices both to Manak Chand and to Lalchand and Tarachand for taking steps for transferring the registration in his name in view of the purchase of the lorry by him. Despite these notices, no action was taken. Hence the plaintiff filed a suit for recovery of the amount of Rs.5,000/- which was paid by the plaintiff for the purchase of lorry from Lal Chand and Tara Chand defendants and claimed Rs.1,800/- as interest on that amount by way of damages.

(2.) The short point raised by Mr. Andley, counsel appearing for the appellant was that as neither Manak Chand nor Lalchand and Tarachand took any steps to transfer the registration in the name of the plaintiff before the registering authority, the sale was ineffective and it really amounted to an agreement to sell. We are however unable to agree with this submission because in the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, as it stood in 1966, there was no provision which prohibits sale of a vehicle. Section 31 of the Act runs thus:-

(3.) We do not find any merit in this appeal. We accordingly dismiss the appeal but in the circumstances we leave the parties to bear their own costs throughout.