Against the aforesaid judgment, the present appeals by special leave have been filed by defendant number.
Thereafter plaintiff preferred an appeal before the High Court in which on behalf of the defendants an application was filed to take on record the joint application dated 5.4.1971 filed by the plaintiff and defendant number 1 before the Regional Transport Authority for transfer of the 5 buses along with their permits in favour of the Ist defendant by way of an additional evidence.
18.6.1971.
Pursuant to the said agreement, a joint application was made by the plaintiff and the Ist defendant in April 1971 before the companycerned Regional Transport Authority for transfer of permits of 5 buses which was rejected on 5.7.1971 on the ground that Tamil Nadu Ordinance No.
After the said judgment, the Tribunal allowed the appeal filed by the Ist defendant and directed the companycerned Regional Transport Authority to transfer the permits in favour of the Ist defendant whereupon the same were transferred on 21.4.1979 and till then the buses were in possession of the plaintiff.
600 of 1997 against that portion of the impugned judgment whereby the prayer, made on behalf of the defendants for taking, joint application filed by the plaintiff and defendant number 1 before Regional Transport Authority for permission to transfer 5 buses along with permits in favour of defendant number 1, by way of additional evidence at the appellate stage, has been refused.
4 to 6 stating therein that as the Ist defendant found it difficult to maintain the vehicles, he decided to transfer the same in favour of defendant number.
The plaintiff respondent filed a suit bearing Title Suit No.
Shri Sudhir Chandra, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants, in support of the appeal has raised various points.
The ownership of the vehicles along with permits passed on to the Ist defendant upon the execution of the document, Exhibit A 1, though the delivery of the vehicles was postponed till the transfer of permits and after the same were transferred, the plaintiff delivered physical possession of the five buses to the Ist defendant.
While Civil Appeal No.
4 to 7 were number bona fide purchasers and had knowledge of the agreement entered into between the plaintiff and the Ist defendant.
The Ist defendant denied execution of letter dated 31.1.1972, Exhibit A 2, stating that the plaintiff had with him his signatures on blank papers, one of which was used for fabricating the letter, Exhibit A 2.
4 to 7.
Original Suit No.
1 and 4 to 7.
VI of 1971 was issued by the State Government fixing a ceiling limit of 10 permits to an individual operator and directing surrender of excess permits which came into force w.e.f.
A 1, referred to above, permits were transferred in his favour on 21.4.1979 and the plaintiff employed anti social elements to prevent the Ist defendant from plying the buses which necessitated filing of the suit.
4 to 7 as the price of buses companyered by the permits was neither ascertained number paid by the Ist defendant to the plaintiff, the agreement between the plaintiff and the Ist defendant for transfer of the vehicle companyered by the permits was number illegal, defendant number.
According to the plaintiff, the Ist defendant made use of the said order and took forcible possession of the buses from the plaintiff with the help of police.
VI of 1971 and defendant number.
In the said suit, prayer for temporary injunction was made and an ex parte order of injunction was passed.
During the pendency of the writ application and the aforesaid appeal, the Ist defendant sent a letter dated 31.1.1972 Ex.
According to the plaintiff, Ist defendant filed a suit bearing Title Suit No.
In the said letter it was also stated that numberamount of sale price had been paid by the Ist defendant to the plaintiff till then.
On the said application for injunction, the Ist defendant gave an undertaking that he would number alienate the vehicles and the permits in favour of anybody which undertaking was duly recorded by the District Munsif.
Case of the plaintiff is that he was running the business of stage carriage transport and owned 18 or 19 buses in the year 1970 and as there were talks of legislation imposing a ceiling on number of stage carriage permits owned by an individual in the year 1970, the plaintiff entered into an agreement with the Ist defendant on 11.12.1970 under Exhibit A 1 for sale of 5 buses companyered by the route permits.
The companysideration for the aforesaid agreement, Exhibit A 1, was that the Ist defendant should discharge the debts against the plaintiff which were duly discharged before 21.4.1979 when the permits were transferred.
The plaintiff appeared in the said suit and also filed an application for injunction restraining the Ist defendant from alienating the buses and the route permits.
Both the parties in support of their respective cases led evidence.
4 to 7, who filed two written statements one by defendant number.
4 to 6 and another by defendant number 7 and companytested the suit taking defence similar to the Ist defendant.
The Ist defendant filed a written statement companytesting the claim of the plaintiff.
A 2 to the plaintiff in which, after referring to the pendency of the aforesaid cases, it was stated that the Ist defendant would pay price of the buses companyered by the permits as may be ascertained after the passing of an order of transfer of permits and take delivery of the vehicles after such payment.
4 to 6.
There was numberstipulation for payment of any salary and he was being paid money as and when required with a view to give him a good status in life.
According to him, he was the relative of the plaintiff and he and his father joined services of plaintiffs father in or about the year 1949 and he was treated more or less as a member of the family.
Keeping this in mind, the plaintiff, after death of his father, executed some sale deeds in favour of the Ist defendant in relation to certain lands and also sold five buses along with their permits to him under the agreement, Exhibit A 1.
The trial companyrt dismissed the suit after recording findings, inter alia, that the documents, Exhibits A 1 and A 2, were genuine, the agreement, Exhibit A 1, was against public policy as the same was executed to circumvent the provisions of an enactment which was going to be passed fixing a ceiling of permits for an individual which was later promulgated as Tamil Nadu Ordinance No.
1769 of 1979 in the Court of District Munsif, Salem, for permanent injunction restraining the plaintiff from interfering with his possession and enjoyment of the aforesaid 5 buses stating therein that the Ist defendant became owner of the vehicles on 11.12.1970 under the agreement, Exh.
This question was raised for the first time before the High Court, which has recorded a finding, as stated above, that the agreement was number invalid.
As the Ist defendant took forcible possession of the vehicles and did number pay the price, the same necessitated filing of the present suit.
Further prayer was made for rendition of accounts in respect of profits derived by the aforesaid defendants from plying of the aforesaid vehicles from 17.8.1979 till the date of final decree and thereafter decree the suit for the said amount together with interest at the rate of 12 per annum.
Subsequently the writ application was allowed and the provisions fixing a ceiling of 10 permits in the Ordinance which was by then replaced by an Act were struck down as companystitutionally invalid.
261 of 1982 in the Court of Subordinate Judge at Salem for appointment of a Commissioner for fixing price of 5 buses and their routes fully described in Schedule B to the plaint and thereafter decree the suit for the amount so ascertained against defendant number.
4 to 6 filed a joint application before the Regional Transport Authority for transfer of 4 permits in favour of defendant number.
On the same day, another application was filed by the Ist defendant and one T. Sundararajan for transfer of the 5th permit making similar statements and the said T. Sundararajan had later transferred the permit in favour of defendant number 7.
The document sought to be brought on record by additional evidence, was the joint application filed on behalf of the plaintiff and the Ist defendant before the Regional Transport Authority.
599 of 1997 has been preferred against the main judgment whereby the High Court has decreed the suit, Civil Appeal No.
1769 of 1979 filed by the Ist defendant, referred to above, was withdrawn on 8.8.1983 and thereafter on the next day, i.e., on 9.8.1983 the Ist defendant and defendant number.
4 to 7 were bona fide purchasers for value without numberice.
2 and 3 and transferees from Ist defendant as defendant number.
After the filing of the written statement, on prayer being made on behalf of the plaintiff, the two companycerned Regional Transport Authorities were impleaded as defendant number.
Their further claim was that they were bona fide purchasers for value and had numbernotice of the companytract, Exhibits A 1 and A 2, between the plaintiff and the Ist defendant.
The Ist defendant thereafter preferred an appeal before the State Transport Appellate Tribunal against the aforesaid order of rejection whereas the plaintiff filed a writ petition in the Madras High Court challenging validity of the aforesaid Ordinance and during the pendency of the writ petition the proceeding before the Tribunal was stayed.
The High Court, after rejecting the prayer for accepting the additional evidence, by the impugned judgment has allowed the appeal, set aside the judgment and decree passed by the trial companyrt and decreed the suit in its entirety after recording findings, inter alia, that the document, Exhibit A 2, was genuine, the Ist defendant had taken forcible possession of the vehicles in question, the plaintiff companytinued to be owner of the vehicles as property therein did number pass on to the Ist defendant and companysequently upon defendant number.
The applications for transfer of all the five permits were granted on 10.8.1983.
N.AGRAWAL,J. In these appeals by special leave judgment rendered by a Division Bench of Madras High Court has been impugned whereby the judgment and decree of the trial companyrt dismissing plaintiffs suit have been set aside and suit has been decreed.
