9911796707
TMI Blog2000 (11) TMI 1244X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing to the sale. Plaintiff lost the car as well as its quite enjoyment. It is the case of the plaintiff that the defendant had no title over the car so as to pass on the plaintiff at the time of sale, thereby plaintiff was disabled from making any claim of ownership over the car in the criminal proceedings or in any court. Plaintiff therefore could only file suit for damages against defendant. 2. Defendant denied the sale of the car. it is also his case that he has not accepted any consideration from the plaintiff. According to him it is his mother-in-law who purchased the car and sold to one Damodaran Pillai who sold it to the plaintiff. The suit was initially decreed on 28.9.1976 by the trial court for an amount of ₹ 13.750/- with 6% interest from the date of suit. Matter was taken up in appeal before this court vide A.S. No. 92 of 1977. A Bench of this Court vide its judgment dated 23.2.1982 remanded the matter back to the trial court to enable plaintiff to amend the pleading that the car was lost due to want of title to the vendor. Plaintiff amended the plaint and case was subsequently heard and the Sub Court again decreed the suit on 18.11.1982 for an amount of ₹ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that the car has been seized in a case may not be sufficient to show want of title to the plaintiff. Counsel submitted in the absence of any proof that plaintiff had lost title to the vehicle he is not entitled to claim damages. Counsel submitted this question has been specifically considered by this Court in A.S. 92 of 1977 and this Court remanded the matter giving opportunity to the plaintiff to amend the plaint. Counsel submitted that the plaintiff had not succeeded to adduce any evidence to show that plaintiff had lost title to the vehicle or in the alternative defendants had title to the property. Counsel also made reference to a decision of the Supreme Court in Jasraj Indersingh v. Hemraj Multanchand, AIR 1977 SC 1011 as well as a judgment of this Court in Rugmini Amma v. Abdulla1986 KLT 769. Counsel submitted that if the plaintiff fails to comply with the terms of the remand order this court hearing the matter on a second occasion cannot discard the earlier finding of the Division Bench in the remand order. 6. We are of the view that we have to decide this question first before going into other disputed facts. If we find the plaintiff has failed to comply with the terms o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ven to adduce evidence. After remand the plaintiff filed I.A. 1692/82 for amendment of the plaint and sought to incorporate the following amendment to the pleadings: The defendant sold that car to the plaintiff representing that he purchased car from Delhi for consideration. The plaintiff's information is that the said consideration was paid by the defendant from the amounts belonging to him remaining in Bank Deposit in the name of his wife in the Federal Bank, Kolencherry. But he had not obtained any title whatsoever so as to pass on such title to me. He did not make any claim of ownership over the car before the police at the time of the seizure of the car. As such me plaintiff has been disabled from making any claim of ownership over the car before the police or in the criminal proceedings that followed especially when the defendant is taking the stand that he had not sold the car to the plaintiff at all. The plaintiff has lost that car as well as its quite enjoyment. Therefore the plaintiff is entitled to claim the damages shown below. Counter affidavit was filed by the defendant against petition for amendment stating as follows: In the amendment sought for, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t title. In other words, we have to again proceed as if plaintiff has got title to the car. If plaintiff has got title and car was seized by the police no damages could be claimed from the defendant. The plaintiff is therefore bound by the findings of the earlier Division Bench. 9. We are therefore of the view that this Court in this proceeding is bound by the findings of the Division Bench in A.S. 92 of 1977. The Supreme Court in AIR 1977 SC 1011 (supra) has examined the scope of a remand order by the High Court and its legal effect. The Court held as follows: In an appeal against the High Court's finding, the Supreme Court is not bound by what the High Court might have held in its remand order. It is true that a subordinate court is bound by the direction of the High Court. It is equally true that the same High Court, hearing the matter on a second occasion or any other court of co-ordinate authority hearing the matter cannot discard the earlier holding, but a finding in a remand order cannot bind a higher Court when it comes up in appeal before it. This is so because the remand order by the High Court is a finding in an intermediate stage of the same litigation. When ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... This is the correct view of the law . Certainly this Court is hearing the matter on a second occasion and I cannot discard the earlier finding of Viswanatha Iyer, J. in the decision in S.A. No.482 of 1973. I have to hold against the appellant in regard to the subsidiary question raised by the counsel for the appellant. We are of the view the above mentioned principle is squarely applicable to the facts of this case. In this case earlier Division Bench in A.S. 92 of 1977 held that plaintiff would get the value of the car only if the plaintiff has a case that the car has been lost by reason of want of title in the vendor. It is also held that in the absence of a categorical case that the plaintiff lost title to the vehicle the plaintiff may not be entitled to damages. We are of the view, plaintiff has no such case that he lost title to the vehicle. In the petition for amendment, there is absolutely no averment to establish the same as well. In the absence of any pleading and in the absence of any evidence we are of the view that this court in this jurisdiction cannot discard the earlier ruling of the Division Bench. We therefore hold that the plaintiff cannot successfully lay ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
