Telangana High Court
K. Yadaiah vs The Manager on 16 June, 2025
THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE K.SUJANA
APPEAL SUIT No.1034 OF 2003
JUDGMENT:
The present appeal is filed against the judgment and decree
dated 30.12.2002 in O.S. No. 8 of 2000 on the file of learned Senior
Civil Judge, Nalgonda (for short, 'the trial Court'), whereby the suit of
the plaintiff for recovery of lorry bearing No.AP G 4684 or in
alternative, for payment of Rs.1,20,000/- towards cost of said lorry
was dismissed by the trial Court.
2. The appellant herein is the plaintiff and the respondent herein
is the defendant. For the sake of convenience, the parties hereinafter
are referred to as they were arrayed in the main suit.
3. The brief facts of the case, which necessitated the plaintiff to
file the present appeal, are as follows:
It is the case of the plaintiff that he is a lorry driver and
purchased a lorry bearing No.AP G 4684 from one Veeramalla
Muthyalu and thereafter, he borrowed some amount from the
respondent by hypothecating the said lorry in order to meet repairing
expenses of the said lorry in the year 1995. It is stated that despite
the plaintiff clearing the debt amount by paying the instalment
amounts regularly, the defendant took the possession of said lorry in
the absence of the plaintiff in the year 1996. Since the plaintiff is
suffering from ill-health, he approached the defendant in the year
1998 and issued a legal notice. However, since the defendant intends
to sale the said lorry by not handing over the possession of the said
lorry to the plaintiff, the plaintiff filed the suit for recovery of the said
lorry or in alternative, for payment of Rs.1,20,000/- towards cost of
the said lorry.
4. Before the trial Court, the defendant filed written statement
denying the averments of the plaint and contended that the
defendant closed the accounts of the defendant in the year 1996
itself as the plaintiff cleared the debt amount. It is also contended
that the plaintiff himself sold the said lorry to third parties and that
the defendant never took the possession of the said lorry.
5. Based on the above pleadings, the trial Court has framed the
following issues on 30.10.2000:
1. Whether the defendant and his men took away the plaintiff
lorry bearing No.AP G 4684 from his possession on
17.09.1996?
2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of recovery or in
alternative the costs and damages as claimed?
3. To what relief?
6. The plaintiff, in support of his case, examined P.Ws. 1 to 3 and
got marked Exs.A.1 to A.6. On behalf of the defendant, D.W.1 was
examined, however, no document was marked.
7. The trial Court on appreciating the evidence on record, has
dismissed the suit as there is inaction on the part of the plaintiff due
long continued silence on his part regarding the possession of the
said lorry. Aggrieved by the same, the present appeal is filed by the
plaintiff.
8. Heard Sri L.Prabhakar Reddy, learned counsel for the
appellant and Sri A.Ramakrishna Reddy, learned counsel for the
respondent. Perused the material available on record.
9. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that as per the
Ex.A.1, R.C.Book, the appellant is the owner of the said lorry. He
further submitted that though the appellant cleared the loan
amount, the defendant with an ill-intention wrongfully took the
possession of the said lorry by invoking the conditions of the
hypothecation agreement in the absence of the appellant. Hence, he
prayed the Court to allow the appeal.
10. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent sought
to sustain the impugned judgment of the trial Court stating that the
trial Court has rightly dismissed the suit after considering the
evidence on record and prayed the Court to dismiss the appeal.
11. In view of the rival submissions made by both the parties, this
Court has perused the material evidence on record. It is apparent
that the respondent closed the account of the appellant in the year
1996 as the appellant cleared the loan amount. It is noteworthy that
the appellant kept quiet for long period even after knowing that the
said lorry was forcibly taken away from the respondent under the
pretext of ill-health. Pertinently, though the evidence of PW.2
discloses that she immediately informed her husband i.e, the
appellant/PW.1 that the respondent took away the said lorry, the
appellant has not given any Police complaint for recovery of the
possession of the said lorry. Moreover, there is no ample evidence on
record to prove the case of the appellant. Hence, considering the
facts and circumstances of the case, this Court finds no infirmity is
discernible with the judgment passed by the trial Court warranting
interference.
12. In the result, the Appeal Suit is dismissed confirming the
judgment and decree dated 30.12.2002 passed in O.S. No. 8 of 2000
by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Nalgonda. There shall be no order
as to costs.
As a sequel, pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall
stand closed.
____________________
K.SUJANA, J
16.06.2025
gms
