Law: Contract Act, 1872

Section: 2(h)

Law: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)

Section: 100

[Contract Act (IX of 1872)].......S 2 (h)---Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S. 100---Second appeal---Suit for recovery of money paid for purchase of tractor---Delivery of tractor having not been made, plaintiff claimed back his amount---Defendant claimed that tractor in question which was meant for plaintiff was handed over to his son who fraudulently got it entered in the record of Excise and Taxation Department in his own name---Entry in the name of plaintiffs son was, however, based on a receipt issued by the defendant in the name of plaintiff's son regarding purchase of tractor by him---Plaintiff's son had paid a sum of Rs.14,390 to the defendant for purchasing the tractor and in token thereof receipt was issued---Such receipt could not be deemed in lieu of the payment of Rs.15,000 made by plaintiff to the defendant for the purchase of tractor--­First Appellate Court, on basis of evidence was thus, correct in holding that plaintiffs son wished to have his own tractor which he ultimately bought from the defendant---Defendant had failed to discharge the onus which shifted to him after plaintiff had led evidence, to prove that amount of Rs.15,000 advanced to defendant had neither been refunded nor a tractor in lieu thereof, was handed over to him---Evidence on record had been correctly appreciated by First Appellate Court, who had given sound reasons to differ with the findings of Trial Court on crucial questions---Second appeal did not warrant interference in the rendered by First Appellate Court. ORDER A suit for recovery of a sum of Rs.15,000 was filed by respondent No.l against the appellant and FECTO Ltd. (respondent No.2), on the ground that the respondent-plaintiff had made an advance of Rs.15,000 to the appellant for purchase of tractor and since the delivery of the tractor was not made, the appellant was liable to pay back the aforesaid amount. The suit, after trial, was dismissed by the learned Civil Judge vide judgment and decree dated 3-5-1975. Respondent No.l filed an appeal which was accepted by the learned Additional District Judge and the decree, as prayed for, was granted in favour of respondent No.l vide judgment dated 16-9-1978. Hence this…

Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492