Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2026 DAILYLAW 16521 (HP)

Savita Sharma v. Ravinder Kumar

2026-04-02

Romesh Verma

body2026
JUDGMENT : ROMESH VERMA, J. 1. The present appeal arises out of the judgment and decree, dated 28.9.2018 as passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Hamirpur, H.P. in Civil Appeal No. 28/2014, whereby the appeal preferred by the present appellant/plaintiff has been ordered to be dismissed and the judgment and decree, dated 15.12.2012 as passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) Nadaun, District Hamirpur, in Civil Suit No. 143/2002, have been affirmed. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the plaintiff/appellant, Savita Sharma, filed a suit for mandatory injunction against the defendants/respondents in the Court of learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Nadaun, District Hamirpur, on 19.3.2002. It was averred in the plaint that the plaintiff was the owner/R.C. holder of the bus No. HP-22- 4212, which was being plied under the name and style of “Kalia Bus Service”. The plaintiff was registered in Excise and Taxation Department, Hamirpur vide certificate No. HAP- 1802. On 13.12.1998, the plaintiff sold the aforesaid vehicle to defendant No.1, Ravinder Kumar, for a total sale consideration of Rs.4,90,000/-, out of which, defendant No.1 paid Rs.1,00,000/- to the plaintiff on the same day and remaining amount was paid as per agreement, dated 13.12.1998 as entered between the parties. The plaintiff also handed over the possession of the vehicle to defendant No.1 on 13.12.1998. After receiving full and final payment, the plaintiff executed an affidavit on 11.2.1999 before the Additional District Magistrate, Hamirpur and undertook that she has no objection if the ownership of the vehicle is transferred in the name of defendant No.1. It was averred that defendant No.1 was liable to pay all taxes in respect of the vehicle in question after the agreement, dated 13.12.1998. 3. It was further averred that defendant No.2, Assistant Excise & Taxation Commissioner, Hamirpur, wrongly and illegally served the plaintiff with notices dated 20.10.2001, 21.2.2002 and 2.3.2002. The plaintiff came to know that defendant No.1, in a fraudulent manner and with a view to harass the plaintiff, transferred the vehicle directly to the Principal, Shishu Model High School, Village and Post Office Dhaulat, District Kapurthala (Punjab) through defendant No. 3, the Registering and Licensing Authority, Hamirpur. In fact, the vehicle in question should have been transferred firstly in the name of defendant No.1 and then in the name of Principal, Shishu Model High School, Village and Post Office Dhaulat, District Kapurthala (Punjab). In fact, the vehicle in question should have been transferred firstly in the name of defendant No.1 and then in the name of Principal, Shishu Model High School, Village and Post Office Dhaulat, District Kapurthala (Punjab). The plaintiff is being regularly harassed by sending notices through defendant No.2, therefore, a decree for mandatory injunction was sought directing defendant No.2 to recover the arrears of passengers tax etc. of the vehicle in question from defendant No.1 with a permanent prohibitory injunction restraining defendant No.2 from issuing any notice regarding arrears of passenger tax of the vehicle in question. 4. The suit was contested and resisted by the defendants by filing separate written statements. 5. Defendant No.1 filed written statement, wherein he raised various preliminary objections with regard to maintainability, valuation, estoppel, locus standi, suit being non-joinder and mis-joinder of necessary parties etc. On merits, it was averred that defendant No.1 did not purchase any vehicle from the plaintiff, as alleged. He denied that the plaintiff handed over the possession of the vehicle to him on 13.12.1998. He is not aware regarding execution of the agreement, dated 11.2.1999, alleged to have been executed before the Additional District Magistrate, Hamirpur. 6. Story regarding sale of the vehicle by defendant No.1 to Principal, Shishu Model School, Kapurthala was stated to be concocted one. It was specifically averred that the story as projected by the plaintiff is totally wrong, null and void as defendant No.1 was minor and a school going boy as on 13.12.1998, thus he was not competent to enter into any sort of agreement/contract with the plaintiff. 7. Defendants No. 2 to 3 filed joint written statement, whereby allegations leveled in the plaint were denied. It was specifically stated that the vehicle in question was not transferred in the name of defendant No.1 as per their office record, therefore, they prayed for dismissal of the suit filed by the plaintiff. 8. The plaintiff filed replications to the written statements as filed by the defendants, wherein contents of the plaint were reiterated. 9. The learned trial court on 1.6.2004 framed the following issues:- 1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for mandatory injunction as prayed for? OPP. 2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of permanent prohibitory injunction as prayed for? OPP. 3. Whether the suit is not maintainable, as alleged? OPD. 4. 9. The learned trial court on 1.6.2004 framed the following issues:- 1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for mandatory injunction as prayed for? OPP. 2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of permanent prohibitory injunction as prayed for? OPP. 3. Whether the suit is not maintainable, as alleged? OPD. 4. Whether the plaintiff has no locus standi to file the suit as alleged? OPD 5. Whether the plaintiff is estopped from filing the suit as alleged? OPD 6. Whether the suit is bad for non-service of legal notice u/s 80 CPC, if so, its effect? OPD 7. Whether the plaintiff has no cause of action to file the suit as alleged? OPD 8. Whether the suit is liable to be dismissed with special cost u/s 35-A CPC as alleged? OPD 9. Relief. 10. The learned trial court directed the parties to adduce evidence in support of their contentions to corroborate their respective cases and ultimately, the learned trial court vide its judgment and decree dated 15.12.2012 dismissed the suit of the plaintiff/appellant. 11. The plaintiff, feeling dissatisfied by the aforesaid judgment and decree, dated 15.12.2012, preferred an appeal before the learned first Appellate Court on 6.3.2013, however, the same also came to be dismissed vide judgment and decree, dated 28.9.2018. 12. Now, aggrieved by the aforesaid judgments and decrees, the appellant has preferred the present regular second appeal, which was admitted by this Court on 8.1.2019 on the following substantial questions of law:- 1. Whether the findings of both the Courts below are a result of complete misreading of pleadings, evidence and the law as applicable to the facts of the case especially documents, Exts. P-1, PW1/A, PW3/A, PW4/A, PX and PW1/B? 2. Whether the lower courts have mis- appreciated, mis-construed and mis-read the oral as well as documentary evidence led by parties to the suit and the findings of lower Courts are inconsistent and contradictory to the evidence and facts on record? 13. It is contended by Mr. Dheeraj K. Vashisht, learned counsel for the appellant that the judgments and decrees, as passed by the learned courts below are perverse and erroneous and, thus, are liable to be quashed and set aside. 13. It is contended by Mr. Dheeraj K. Vashisht, learned counsel for the appellant that the judgments and decrees, as passed by the learned courts below are perverse and erroneous and, thus, are liable to be quashed and set aside. He has submitted that the learned courts below have not decided the case in consonance with the oral as well as documentary evidence placed on record, therefore, after setting aside the impugned judgments and decrees, the suit filed by the plaintiff may be ordered to be decreed. 14. On the other hand, Ms. Devyani Sharma, learned Senior Advocate, duly assisted by Mr. Shivam Sharma, Advocate and Mr. Diwakar Dev Sharma, learned Additional Advocate General, appearing for the respective respondents have defended the impugned judgments and decrees. 15. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and have also perused the record. 16. Since both substantial questions of law are intrinsically interlinked and interconnected with each other, therefore, they are taken up together for consideration. 17. The very case of the plaintiff/appellant is that she was owner of the bus No. HP-22-4212, which was being run under the name and style of “Kalia Bus Service”. On 13.12.1998, she sold the aforesaid bus to defendant No.1 for a total consideration of Rs.4,90,000/- and defendant No.1 paid Rs.1,00,000/- to the plaintiff on the same day and remaining amount was paid as per agreement, dated 13.12.1998. The possession of the vehicle was handed over to defendant No.1 on 13.12.1998 and after receiving full and final payment, the plaintiff executed an affidavit on 11.2.1999 before the Additional District Magistrate, Hamirpur undertaking therein that she has no objection if the ownership of the vehicle is transferred in the name of defendant No.1. 18. It is further case of the plaintiff that defendant No.2 has wrongly and illegally issued notices dated 20.10.2001, 21.2.2002 and 2.3.2002 to the plaintiff to deposit arrears of passenger tax etc. She had informed defendant No.2 regarding sale of vehicle in question in favour of defendant No.1 and even part payment of passenger tax was also made by defendant No.1 in the office of defendant No.2. 19. The plaintiff has come forward with a case that defendant No.1 in a fraudulent manner transferred the vehicle in question directly to the Principal, Shishu Model High School, Village and Post Office Dhaulat, District Kapurthala (Punjab) through defendant No. 3. 19. The plaintiff has come forward with a case that defendant No.1 in a fraudulent manner transferred the vehicle in question directly to the Principal, Shishu Model High School, Village and Post Office Dhaulat, District Kapurthala (Punjab) through defendant No. 3. According to the plaintiff, in fact, the vehicle in question ought to have been transferred firstly in the name of defendant No.1 and then in the name of Principal, Shishu Model High School, Village and Post Office Dhaulat, District Kapurthala (Punjab). 20. The case, as projected by the plaintiff, has been specifically refuted by defendant No.1. It is specific case of defendant No.1 that neither any agreement was entered between the parties nor he purchased the vehicle in question from the plaintiff. According to him, on 13.12.1998, i.e. the purported date of agreement to sell, he was minor and a school going boy and being a minor, on the alleged date of affidavit/agreement, he was not competent to have executed any sort of contract/agreement with the plaintiff. 21. In order to substantiate his case, defendant No.1, has placed on record copy of matriculation certificate, Ext. DW2/A. As per matriculation certificate, date of birth of defendant No.1 has been shown to be 24.11.1983. Similarly, perusal of birth certificate, Ext. DW1/A, established on record that defendant No.1 has born on 24.11.1983. 22. Perusal of these documents reveal that in case story of the plaintiff is accepted, then in that event, as on the alleged date of execution of the agreement, defendant No.1 was minor and aged about 15 years. 23. It would be apt here to reproduce Section 11 of Indian Contract Act, which reads as under:- “11. Who are competent to contract.—Every person is competent to contract who is of the age of majority according to the law to which he is subject, and who is of sound mind, and is not disqualified from contracting by any law to which he is subject.” 24. The case, as put-forth by the plaintiff that an agreement have been executed between the plaintiff and defendant No.1 qua sale of the vehicle in question on 13.12.1998, falls to the ground inasmuch as defendant No.1 has been able to prove on record that at the relevant time, he was not competent to enter any agreement/contract as has been tried to be projected by the plaintiff. Once it is proved and established on record that defendant No.1 was minor on the relevant date and was aged about 15 years, the case of the plaintiff cannot sustain in view of provisions of Section 11 of the Indian Contract Act and consequently, stands demolished to the ground. 25. Even otherwise, the plaintiff/appellant has not been able to establish and prove the execution of the agreement, Ext. PW3/A in its entirety. The agreement, Ext. PW3/A is handwritten, but interestingly it has not been signed by the appellant/plaintiff and rather, the same is alleged to have been signed by defendant No.1, however, he has specifically denied his signatures over the agreement, Ext. PW3/A. Even the learned counsel for the appellant could not answer specific query of the court as to why plaintiff did not sign the said agreement. 26. In order to prove agreement, Ext. PW3/A, the plaintiff has examined PW3 Jagdish Chand and PW8 Braham Dass. 27. Testimony of PW3 Jagdish Chand demolishes case of the plaintiff. PW3 has stated in his deposition that he knew the plaintiff and her husband. He stated that he does not know defendant No.1. The agreement, Ext. PW3/A, after reducing into writing, was brought to his shop and he appended his signatures over the same encircled in red ink as “A” at his shop, situated at Kangu. He did not know as to where the alleged agreement was scribed and who scribed it. PW3 deposed that his signatures were taken by Hans Raj on the agreement. Hans Raj is husband of the plaintiff/appellant. He has admitted that at the relevant time, neither the plaintiff, nor defendant No.1 Ravinder Kumar and Rattan Chand were present on the spot. 28. Braham Dass, who is one of the alleged witnesses to the agreement, Ext. PW3/A, entered the witness box as PW8 to support the case of the plaintiff and stated that the plaintiff had sold one bus to defendant No.1. Possession of the bus was also handed over to defendant No.1 and Rs. 1,00,000/- was paid by defendant No.1 to the plaintiff. He stated that agreement was entered between the parties on 13.12.1998. He further stated that Jagdish Chand and Vishwanath appended their signatures on the agreement in his presence. He stated that the agreement was executed in the shop of Jagdish Chand. He admitted that there are no signatures of the plaintiff on the agreement. He stated that agreement was entered between the parties on 13.12.1998. He further stated that Jagdish Chand and Vishwanath appended their signatures on the agreement in his presence. He stated that the agreement was executed in the shop of Jagdish Chand. He admitted that there are no signatures of the plaintiff on the agreement. He stated that he does not know in which language defendant No.1 appended his signatures on the agreement. The testimony of PW8 Braham Dass is contrary to the statement of PW3 Jagdish Chand, who has categorically stated that he does not know who had written the agreement. 29. The plaintiff has entered the witness box as PW6. From the perusal of statements as made by the plaintiff and his witnesses, which in case are read in conjunction with the evidence of the defendants, especially DW2, Ravinder Kumar, who stated that on the purported date of agreement i.e. 13.12.1998, he was hardly 15 years of age qua which he has placed on record his birth certificate and matriculation certificate Ext. DW2/A and DW2/B, as discussed above, the plaintiff has not been able to prove due execution of the agreement, Ext. PW3/A. 30. The testimonies of the plaintiff’s witnesses are contradictory to each other and there are variations and inconsistencies which create doubt in the story of the plaintiff. 31. The defendant No.1, as observed above, was minor at the time of alleged execution of the agreement, therefore, no agreement could have been executed between the plaintiff and defendant No.1. The plaintiff has failed to prove his case beyond reasonable doubt, thus, the learned courts below have legally appreciated the point in controversy and have rightly dismissed the suit as filed by the plaintiff. 32. As regards case of the plaintiff that she had sold the vehicle in question to defendant No.1 in the year 1998, who at her back further sold the vehicle in question to aforesaid Principal, Shishu Model High School, Village and Post Office Dhaulat, District Kapurthala (Punjab), perusal of Ext. 32. As regards case of the plaintiff that she had sold the vehicle in question to defendant No.1 in the year 1998, who at her back further sold the vehicle in question to aforesaid Principal, Shishu Model High School, Village and Post Office Dhaulat, District Kapurthala (Punjab), perusal of Ext. PX, which is a “No Objection Certificate” dated 18.9.2000 having been issued by the plaintiff in favour of Principal, Shishu Model High School, Village and Post Office Dhaulat, District Kapurthala (Punjab), falsifies the case of the plaintiff and proves that the vehicle was transferred in the name of the aforesaid Principal at the behest of the plaintiff herself, who has also appended her signatures on the said document. 33. The courts below have concurrently held that the plaintiff has failed to prove due execution of the agreement dated 31.12.1998 in view of the fact that defendant No.1 was about 15 years old at the relevant time, therefore, in light of provisions of Section 11 of the Indian Contract Act, no agreement/contract could have been entered between the plaintiff and defendant No.1. 34. The learned courts below have meticulously discussed oral as well as documentary evidence including Exts. P-1, PW1/A, PW3/A, PW4/A, PX and PW1/B and have rightly come to the conclusion that the plaintiff has failed to establish and prove his case beyond reasonable doubt. 35. Substantial questions of law are answered accordingly. 36. In view of aforesaid discussions and for the reasons stated hereinabove, the present appeal, being devoid of any merit is dismissed, so also the pending application (s), if any, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.