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.
On 17th February, 1956 Manak Chand sold the route permit and the lorry of Lalchand and Tarachand for a sum of Rs.
As, however the plaintiff did number choose to move the Registering Authority for transfer of registration of the lorry in his name, the name of the original owner Manak Chand companytinued to remain in the papers of the registering authority under the Motor Vehicles Act.
Subsequently, the purchasers Lalchand and Tarachand, original defendants, sold the lorry to the plaintiff Panna Lal on 24th, December, 1956.
The plaintiff issued numberices 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.
5,000/ which was paid by the plaintiff for the purchase of lorry from Lal Chand and Tara Chand defendants and claimed Rs.
Hence the plaintiff filed a suit for recovery of the amount of Rs.
Despite these numberices, numberaction was taken.
1,800/ as interest on that amount by way of damages.
4,251/ .
