As the defendant was going to Kuala Lumpur on business he executed a general power of attorney, Ex.
The defendant, however, withdrew his companysent and the application was rejected.
At the time of partition the permit was number in the name of the defendant and some proceedings for the transfer of the permit to his name were pending.
A 55, in favour of the plaintiff.
Accordingly it was provided in the partition deed as follows As soon as its route permit and registration etc.
The defendant had joined with the plaintiff earlier in filing a joint application for transfer of permits before the Regional Transport Authority.
Two more buses seem to have been acquired since then.
The plaintiff, accordingly, seeks a mandatory injunction directing the defendant to execute necessary documents required to effectuate the transfer of the permits.
With reference to Bus No.
In April 1954, the plaintiff purchased two more vehicles, namely, MDO 1106 and MDH 730, but the permits were obtained in the name of the defendant in whose name the vehicles were also actually acquired.
14, 1965 of the Madras High Court in Second Appeal No.
A motor bus MDH 662 fell to the share of the plaintiff.
Appeal from the judgment and decree dated September.
In this power of attorney the defendant admitted that the three buses above mentioned belonged to the plaintiff and were plying in his name as requested by the plaintiff.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
K. Sen, R.M. Mehta and J.B. Dadachanji, for.
MDU 4069 the decree was set aside.
The suit was decreed entirely by the Trial Court, but the District Judge companyfirmed the decree only with reference to four of the buses.
the appellant.
The plaintiffs case in brief was that the defendant was carrying on business on his behalf as a benamidar.
1453 of 1966.
Gopalakrishnan, for the respondent.
1394 of 1963.
The High Court held that the plaintiff and the defendant practiced a fraud upon the authorities, companyjointly, in companytravention of the express provision of the Motor Vehicles Act.
On June 29, 1953, the six brothers who companystituted the Joint Hindu Family entered into a partition of the properties belonging to the Joint Family, evidenced by a registered document Ex.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Sikri, J. This appeal by certificate granted by the High Court of Madras is directed against its judgment and decree modifying the decree passed by the District Judge.
In September 1953, the permit was transferred in the name of the defendant.
The relevant facts for the determination of the points raised before us are as follows The plaintiff, K. M. Viswanatha pillai, appellant before us and hereinafter referred to as the plaintiff, and K.M. Shanmugham Pillai, respondent before us and hereinafter referred to as the defendant, were originally members of a Joint Hindu Family.
are transferred in the name of Shanmugam Pillai, he shall have the same transferred in the name of the 4th individual of us, Viswanatha Pillai.
