ZAHOORUL HAQ, J.-There are 3 connected appeals filed by the same person Muhammad Amin against the consolidated ,judgment and decree of a learned Single Judge of this High Court dated 20-1-1972 passed in Suit No. 257/66, 267/69 and 268/69.
It would be necessary to give the relevant facts in respect of 3 suits out of which the impugned order has arisen. On 30th March, 1965, the respondent Jamil had filed a suit. Alleging that he had purchased a Bedford Truck KAT No. 2012 Model of 1960 from appellant Muhammad Amin in April, 1964, for a sum of Rs.18,000 and had taken over the possession of that truck from Muhammad Amin and had paid a sum of Rs.7,000 at the time of taking delivery in 'April, 1964, and had thereafter paid the balance till February, 1965 in installment of Rs.1,000 per month to Muhammad Amin and that he had also spent a sum of Rs.11,000 on repairs of the truck, etc. But appellant Muhammad Amin alongwith some man had gone to the house of respondent No. 2 on 29-3-65 and attempted to take away the truck. Therefore, respondent Jamil had filed a suit for declaration, injunction and cancellation of document under sections 39 and 42. Of Specific Relief Act as -Muhammad Amin was alleged to have obtained the signature of Muhammad Jamil on a blank non judicial stamp paper on the pretext of preparing an agreement. This suit was registered as Suit No. 137/65 by First Class Civil Judge and ad interim injunction was granted against the appellant Muhammad Amin retraining him from taking the possession of the truck. This suit was later on transferred to the High Court and was numbered as Suit No. 268/69.
3. The respondent No. 1 Ghulam Nabi had filed Suit No.-125/1966 before 1st Class Civil Judge, Karachi on 21-3-1966 against the appellant Muhammad Amin for rescission of hire-purchase agreement and taking of the account as well as refund of money on the allegation that in the end of March, 1965, he entered into an oral hire-purchase agree--ment in respect of the said truck No. KAT 2012 with Muhammad Amin who had given an assurance that said truck belonged to hire and that on 2nd April, 1965, Muhammad Amin had brought a written document and obtained his signature aver the same which turned out to be a hire-purchase agreement. It was further alleged by Ghulam Nabi that be had delivered a cheque of Rs.8,500 to Muhammad Amin which was later on encashed and that he paid taxes over the same truck. Ghulam Nabi continued to allege that on 7-4-1965 he had taken the truck to Lea Market for the purpose of loading but it was stolen from there and he lodged the report with police and the truck was recovered by the police. The truck was first given to Ghulam Nabi by the police but then later on it was taken away from him and eventually Ghulam Nabi served a notice upon Muhammad Amin on 9-12-1965 to pay back his Rs.8,500 but Muhammad Amin gave no reply, therefore, the suit was filed for recovery of RS.8,500 against Muhammad Amin appellant only. Later oil this suit was also transferred to the High Court and was numbered here as Suit No. 267/69.
4. The leading suit 257/66 was filed in this Court by the appellant Muhammad Amin against respondents Ghulam Nabi and Muhammad Jamil on 19-10-1966 where Muhammad Amin alleged that he was the owner of the same truck KAT 2012 and he had sold it to Muhammad Jamil respondent for Rs.36,000 in April, 1964 when Muhammad Jamil bad promised to pay Rs.10,000 within one month of delivery of possession of the truck and balance by Rs.1,000, monthly installment. The truck was delivered to Muhammad Jamil but he paid Rs.400 only and since Muhammad Jamil was not able to pay the balance of the sale price, he returned the truck to Muhammad Amin in December, 1964 Muhammad Amin continued to allege that thereafter the truck remained 'd in his possession until 29th March, 1965, when he let out the truck to Ghulam Nabi on hire-purchase basis in terms of oral agreement entered into on 26th March, 1965 and Ghulam Nabi was given a choice Jo purchase the truck for Rs.28,000 including the installment paid by him and possession of the truck was given 'to Ghulam Nabi on 29-3-1965. Terms of the agree--ment of hire-purchase were reduced in writing on 2-4-1965, by which Ghulam Nabi was to pay Rs.14,000 as first installment and the balance in instalments of Rs.1,000 per month. Till full payment was made Muhammad Amin was to remain as the owner of the truck. Ghulam Nabi had delivered 2 cheques of Rs.8,500 on 26-3-1965 and Rs.5,500 on 29-3-1965 along with 10 more cheques of Its. 1,000 which were post dated. Cheque of Rs.8,500 was cashed on 27-3-1965 while the, other cheque was alleged to be dis--honoured. Muhammad Amin continued to allege that respondent Muhammad Jamil dishonestly filed a false and frivolous suit on 30th March, 1965 and it was asserted that Muhammad Jamil was not entitled to lay claim qn the truck as be had already surrendered the possession of the truck on his own request about 3i months earlier. It was further alleged that Jamil was granted an injunction and on the basis of that order of injunction Jamil had stolen the truck on 7-4-1965 and a report had been lodged in respect of the same and a case was- registered against Muhammad Jamil but he was discharged by the Court. Muhammad Amin had pleaded that Ghulam Nabi bad committed a breach of hire-purchase agreement and therefore, he was entitled to the return of the truck from Muhammad Jamil in whose possession it was and so he claimed the return of the truck as well as damages and depreciation in value of the truck.
5. All these suits were contested by the parties and they had filed written statements taking the position which they bad taken in their own suits. Issues had been framed by the Civil Judge in the 2 suits which were transferred to the High Court. In the suit of Muhammad Amin No. 257/66 the Court framed 6 issues on 18-9-1967. The suits of Jamil and Ghulam Nabi pending in the Civil Court were transferred to the High Court in 1969, and were separately numbered as 268/69 and 267/69 respectively. On 22-4-1970 an order for consolidation of all the 3 suits was passed. It was further ordered that evidence recorded in Suit No. 257/66 shall be treated as evidence in the 3 suits and it was further ordered that the issues were to be recast before the arguments. On 4-2-1971, 2 more issues were added in Suit No. 257/66 and thus following 8 issues arose out of Suit No. 257/66: "(1) Whether the truck in question was sold to the Defendant No. 2 in April, 1965; If so for what amount?
(2) Whether the said truck was returned by Defendant No. 2 to the plaintiff in December, 1964. If so, for what reason?
3. (i) Whether the said truck was delivered by the plaintiff to the Defendant No. 1 on 29-3-1965 under an oral hire-purchase agreement, reduced in writing on 4-2-1965. If so, whether this defendant has complied with the terms of this agreement?
(ii) Whether the plaintiff wrongfully rescinded the hire-purchase agree--ment or committed breach of this agreement?
4. Whether the Defendant No. 2 unlawfully removed the truck from the possession of Defendant No. 1? If so, what is the effect?
5. In whom the property in the truck vests now?
6. To what relief the plaintiff are entitled and against which of the defendant?
7. Whether the Defendant No. 1 is entitled to the refund of Rs.8,500 or any part of the said amount?
8. To what relief, if any Defendant No. 1 is entitled?
6. Common evidence had been recorded. All the three plaintiff's in the 3 suits made their depositions. Appellant Muhammad Amin examined Wali Muhammad Motor Vehicle Inspector, Usmanul Haq Motor Driver and Shamshad Ali Motor Mechanic. Respondent Muhammad Jamil examined Syed Riazur Rehman's reader of the Court of Additional City Magistrate and Rustam Khan A. S. I. P. Muhammad Jamil also examined on commission Muhammad Ali Driver and Abdul Rasool A. S 1. P. Ghulam Nabi examined himself alone. Documents were produced by the parties.
7. Consolidated judgment in the 3 suits was delivered on 20-1-1972. On 15-12-1972 L. P. A. No. 35/72 was filed by the appellant and it was admitted on 22nd February, 1972, and stay was granted. On 8- 3-1972 a consent order was passed in Appeal No. 35/72 for remanding the case back to the Single Judge for fresh decision on the ground that the suit had not been decided on the issues framed in Suit No. 257/66 but it was in fact decided on the basis of the issues in the suit which have been transferred from the Court of the Civil Judge to the High Court. But on that day respondent Ghulam Nabi was not represented before the Court as notice upon him had not been served till 8-3-1972, and therefore the office pointed out that defect and consequently on 15-3-1972 the order of 8-3- 1972 was recalled on the ground that Ghulam Nabi had not been served till 8-3-1972.
8. It appears that on 29-3-1972 respondent Ghulam Nabi filed Misc. Application No. 256/66 under section 152 read with section 151, C. P. C. For correction of the judgment by transcribing the issues in Suit No. 257/66 in the judgment of .The Court dated 20-1-1972. On 16-10-1972 an order was passed by the learned Single Judge in Suit No. 257/66 where it was noted as under:- "Counsel for parties, `correction as prayed be made."
9. Syed Sami Ahmed learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the 3 suits were not decided by the learned Single Judge according to the 8 issues framed in Suit No. 257/66, but actually the judgment had decided the issues framed by the Civil Judge in the Suit of Ghufam Nabi v. Muhammad Amin which was later on transferred to the High Court and was numbered as 267/1969. Before dealing with this submission we pay note here that the original judgment signed by the learned Judge on 20-1-1972 does contain the issues of Suit No. 267/1967 as the issues upon which the judgment was going to be delivered and thus it appears to be prima facie correct that the issues of Suit No. 257/66 had not actually been decided by the learned Single Judge. But this is a mere impression of first sight and the impression is removed as soon as we start reading the judgment of the learned Single Judge. The learned Single Judge has not actually decided any one issue particularly, but he has commented and discussed the contentions raised by the parties as whole. And therefore it cannot be urged that the decision of the learned Single Judge is a decision on the issues framed in Suit No. 267/69 or that the issues in Suit No. 257/66 have been completely ignored, therefore, the contention of the learned counsel appears to be merely technical and has no merit a all. The learned counsel could argue although that the judgment suffers from the technical defect of not taking and deciding all the 8 issues of Suit No. 257/ 66 separately but we found that the learned Single Judge has decided all the 8 issues of Suit No. 257/66 in a consolidated manner and there could be no serious objection to the decisions of the suits in respect of all the issues together when no prejudice had been caused to any party, and Mr. Sami Ahmed g has not even alleged that there was any prejudice caused to his client, the appellant Muhammad Amin, by the method adopted by the learned Single Judge. We find that the learned Single Judge has noted the main controversy between the parties and the same was whether the truck had in fact been restored by Muhammad Jamil to Muhammad Amin. And in that respect the learned Judge has taken note of section 20 of the Sales of Goods Act and has observed that the property in the truck passed to Muhammad Jamil on its sale accompanied by the delivery of the possession and the question whether full price was paid or not, assumed secondary importance, although it was relevant. Learned Judge proceeded to observe that if return of the truck by respondent Muhammad Jamil to appellant Muhammad Amin was established then the original contract of sales in favour of Muhammad Jamil made in 1964 by Muhammad Amin would be superseded and Muhammad Amin would then become the owner in possession of the truck and he could be entitled to sell it to any other person or dispose it of in any other manner, but if the conclusion in respect of return of the truck by Jamil to Amin could not be reached then Muhammad Amin appellant could neither be in possession of the truck nor he could deal with the truck in any manner and the maximum that he could demand, would be the balance of the price and not return of the truck. The learned Judge thereafter rightly observed that since Muhammad Amin had claimed that truck was returned by Jamil, therefore, burden of proof lies upon Muhammad Amin.
10. We do not find anything wrong in the approach, of the learned Single Judge in deciding all the issues in the manner which he did. In fact we find that the learned Judge in his judgment has decided the various issues of Suit No. 257/66. After discussing evidence of the parties and documents produced by the witnesses he came to the conclusion that there is overwhelming evidence to prove the possession of Muhammad Jamil and therefore the allegations made by Muhammad Amin and Ghulam Nabi that truck was given back to Muhammad Amin (by Muhammad Jamil) and later on delivered (by Muhammad Amin) to Ghulam Nabi are unsub-- stantiated. The above finding is a finding in respect of the Issues Nos. 1 and 3 of issues in Suit No. 257/66. In the discussion in respect of the above finding the learned Judge has also come to the finding that Jamil had continued in possession of the truck all along and had never been out of its possession and consequently that amounts to finding on Issue No. 4 in Suit No. 257/66. Issue No. 5 has not been decided as such but the Single Judge had found that property in truck passed to Muhammad Jamil in 1964, and he has further found that Muhammad Jamil continued in possession of the said truck and never surrendered its possession to Muhammad Amin and the result of these two findings can only be that property in said truck vests in Muhammad Jamil and this Issue No. 5 of Suit No. 257/66 has also been decided. Issue No. 6 is only a general issue in respect of plaintiff which has. Been decided against the appellant and in favour of respondent, while Issue No. 7 had been decided clearly against the appellant and in favour of respondent No. 1 to whom a decree of Rs.8,500 had been granted. And Issue No. 8 of Suit No. 257/66 is again general and it has been decided in favour of respondent No. 1 to the extent of decree of Rs.8,500 in his favour and therefore that issue is also decided by the impugned judgment. .We are, therefore, of the view that the objections raised by the learned counsel that decision is not on issues in Suit No. 257/66 is not justified under the circumstances of this case. It appears that it was merely a clerical mistake that issues of Suit No. 267/69 were copied in the judgment c in Suit No. 257/69 but that mistake is of no consequence as the learned Single Judge has really decided all the issues in Suit No. 257/66 by considering all those issues together.
11. In this respect Mr. Sami Ahmed had relied upon AIR 1922 P C 406 which is followed in AIR 1950 FC 140 where the Privy Council had observed that it was necessary that the Courts pronounced their opinions on all the important points. With great respect we follow that dictum but we find in the present case before us the learned Single Judge has in fact pronounced his opinion on all the important points and in fact the important point in the case was whether the respondent Muhammad Jamil had surrendered the possession of the truck in question to Muhammad Amin in December, 1964, or not and the learned Judge has, after considering the various circumstances of the case, come to the conclusion that there was overwhelming evidence to prove the possession of Muhammad Jamil and therefore the allegation made by the other 2 parties that the truck was given back to Muhammad Amin and later delivered to Ghulam Nabi are unsubstantial and unsubstantiated.
12. Consequently we are of the opinion that the learned Judge pronounced his opinion on the most important point involved in the case which had a bearing upon the decision on all the other issues.
Consequently the objection of the learned counsel for the appellant in respect of the decision not being based on the issues in Suit No. 257/66 is hereby repelled.
13. Mr. Sami Ahmed thereafter contended that the learned Single Judge has failed to consider and give his finding in respect of Exh. 9/1 which is a receipt signed by respondent Ghulam .Nabi on 29- 3-1965 to the effect that he had taken the possession of truck No. KAT 2012 having purchased the same from Muhammad Amin. The learned counsel further submitted that similarly paragraph 2 of the hire-purchase agreement between Muhammad Amin and Ghulam Nabi who is shown to have taken the delivery of the truck from the owner has been lost sight of by the learned Single Judge.
The learned counsel is quite right that these 2 documents have not been referred to by the learned Single Judge, but we find that the judgment in question has taken into consideration the various other docu--ments which had been produced on behalf of the present appellant in respect of the question of restoration of the truck by Muhammad Jamil to the appellant in December, 1964. But the learned Judge had come to the conclusion that the toll tax receipts, Karachi Port Trust receipts, and diesel oil receipts produced by Muhammad Amin did not bear any name and although they bore No. KAT 2012, but the appellant had failed to produce the person who had issued those receipts and nor any attempt was made to call the document from those Offices and he was, therefore, of the view that their genuineness was not established and no weight could be attached to those receipts, Similarly he had disbelieved Exh. 7/19 which was produced by Usmanul Haq Driver of Muhammad Amin in respect of the pay which he had received from Muhammad Amin in respect of truck No. KAT 2012, but the learned Judge noted that it was a receipt on an ordinary paper and was not reliable. The learned Judge also disbelieved Exhs. 8/1 and 8/2 which had been produced by Shamshad Ali Motor Mechanic on the ground that those receipts were on ordinary paper and Shamshad Ali had admitted that he maintained account books but yet these amounts were not shown in those books. Learned Judge was of the view that any body could procure such receipts at any time.
There is a great deal of weight in the observation of the learned Judge.
14. In such view of the evidence produced by Muhammad Amin we do not see how Exhs. 9/1 and 9/3 could torn the scale in favour of Muhammad Amin appellant as those 2 documents are merely admission of respondent No. 1 in favour of the appellant and cannot effect the possession of respon--dent No. 2 Muhammad Jamil who had claimed to be in possession of the truck all along from April, 1964, till March, 1965, and he had produced documents in support of that assertion. In fact we find that the learned Judge has come to the finding at the end of his judgment that Ghulam Nabi has partly contributed to this litigation by assisting Muhammad Amin in falsely claiming that the truck was returned by Muhammad Jamil and subsequently delivered to him and in view of these observations of the learned Single Judge Exhs. 9/1 and 9/3 which were merely admissions on the part of Ghulam Nabi could have hardly influenced the decision of the learned Single Judge in respect of the possession of the truck.
15. We are, ourselves of the view that respondent Muhammad Jamil has been able to establish that he had been in possession of the truck in question which was claimed by Muhammad Amin appellant to have been surrendered to him by Muhammad Jamil. We find that P. W. 1 Wali Muhammad who was examined by the appellant himself has proved that the truck was released by Police on 18th January, 1965, vide Exh. 6/ L which was a letter which he had written to Muhammad Jamil of Karachi as Motor Mobile Patrol Inspector of Karachi. The same witness has produced the challan memo. In respect of that Truck Exh. 6/2 where the number of the truck is given and the name of the accused is shown as Muhammad Ali son of Moharram Ali Khan and the date of offence is 9-1-1965. In cross-examination the counsel of respondent No. 2 showed to this very witness Exh. 6/3 and this witness admitted that Exh. 6/3 was the copy of the challan, Exh. 6/2 which was given to the driver at the spot when the truck was seized. Since Exh. 6/3 had come from the possession of respondent No. 2 it show that respondent No. 2, and his driver were involved in the challan of that truck on 9-1-1965 and in fact we have the statement on commission on Muhammad Ali son of Muharram Ali in this case where he had stated that he was driver of Muhammad Jamil from 1964 to March, 1965 and the truck was KAT 2012 and in January 1965, the truck had hit a wall and the truck had remained with the police and later on it was given to Muhammad Jamil. He further stated that truck had been detained by Mirpurkhas Police in the first week of January, 1965. He also produced the copy of the challan dated 19-2-1965 Exh. 'Y' and challan dated 23-2-1965 Exh. 'Z'. The cross interrogatories of the appellant could not shake the effect of the answers of Muhammad Ali and, therefore, it is proved affirmatively that Muhammad Jamil was in possession of the truck on 9-1-1965 and 23-2-1965 and driver was Muhammad Ali. .
16. Moreover, Exhs. 11/1 and 11/2 which are dated 14-1-1965 have been produced, by Muhammad, Jamil which are acknowledgments for the money orders sent to the Excise and Taxation Department in respect of KAT 2012. It is interesting to note that Exh. 9/7 which is a receipt of Money Order No. 1342 and Exh. 9/8 which is a receipt for Money Order No. 1343 had been produced by Muhammad Amin Appellant to show that he had sent the taxes to the Excise and Taxation Officer, they are both dated 14-1-1965, but their counterparts are Exh. 11;1 and Exh. 11/2. Exh. 11/1 bears No. 1342 and Exh. 11/2 bears No. 1343 and therefore the connection of Exh. 11/1 to Exh. 9/7 is fully established as they are two parts of the money order receipts issued by the Postal Department, but what is most important in this respect is that address of the remitter of the money orders is shown to be Kamaluddin C/o M. J. Autos 1/9 A-111 Nazimabad, Karachi. It is common ground that Kamaluddin was the original owner of the truck and the ad--dress of the remitter of these money orders is the same address of Muhammad Jamil as given in this appeal by Muhammad Amin himself.
Therefore, it is clear that it was Muhammad Jamil who had remitted these 2 money orders on 14-1- 1965 and we are quite sure that Muhammad Jamil would not have paid the taxes for this truck in January, 1965, if he had surrendered the truck to Muhammad Amin in December, 1964. We also find that Muhammad Jamil has produced Exh. 11/3 which is addressed to him and it mentions the name of his driver Muhammad Ali son of Moharram Ali whereby he was directed by A S I Town Police Station Mirpurkhas to produce cleaner Muhammad Ahmed on 24-1-1965 and we have the evidence on commission of Abdul Rasool A S I who has stated that Exh. 11/3 was issued by one A. S. I. Of Mirpurkhas Town Police Station and he has further stated that Roznamcha of the police shows that truck No. KAT 2012 had caused accident on 3-1-1965 at 10 a. m. It is thus clear that on 3-1-1965 it was Muhammad Jamil whose driver was Muhammad Ali who was involved with Truck on 3-1- 1965 and thus he had not surrendered the same to Muhammad Amin in December, 1964. We also have Exh. 11/4and Exh. 11/5 which are the receipts of fine paid by Muhammad Jamil respondent in respect of KAT 2012 and the same have been proved by Raziur Rehman's Reader of the Court at Karachi and this evidence read alongwith the statement of Driver Muhammad Ali who has stated that he was challaned on 9-2-1965 and 23-2-1965 clearly establishes that Muhammad Jamil was in possession of the said truck in February, 1965, and he had paid fine for the same in the Court.
17. We are therefore, in no doubt at all that the learned Single Judge was very much right when he held that there was overwhelming evidence to show that Muhammad Jamil had not surrendered the truck to Muhammad Amin in December, 1964, but had in fact continued in possession of the same till March; 1965. In fact Muhammad Jamil had filed a suit on 30th March, 1965, for restraining Muhammad Amin from taking possession of the truck which Muhammad Amin threatened to do on 29-3-1965. If the story of the surrender of the truck in December, 1964, by Muhammad Jamil was true then why should Muhammad Jamil file suit in March, 1965, and try to retain the possession of the truck, and in fact we find that he had succeeded in obtaining an injunction from the Civil Court.
Lastly we are in agreement with the learned Single Judge that Muhammad Amin had made 3 inconsistent statements in respect of the money which he alleged Muhammad Jamil had paid to him. It is significant to note that in the plaint of Suit No. 257/66 be had twice stated clearly that Muhammad Jamil paid him only Rs.400 but in the statement which he gave to the Police under section 161, Cr. P. C. When Ghulam Nabi had lodged an F.
1. R. Of theft in respect of that truck on 7-4- 1965, Muhammad Amin had stated that Rs.3,000 had been paid by Muhammad Jamil and that statement of Muhammad Amin before the police was clearly proved by the A. S. I. Rustom Khan D.
W. 3 who had recorded his statement. And surprisingly in his statement in Court Muhammad Amin had admitted that he received Rs.2,000 from Muhammad Jamil. This Muhammad Amin clearly showed that he had made 3 different statements in respect of the payment received from Jamil and he was therefore of no worth being relied upon.
18. Appellant Muhammad Amin had also made 2 different statements in respect of the time of the surrender of the truck. In the plaint he stated that it was surrendered to him by Jamil after 8 months of April, 1964, which would be December, 1964, but in his statement before the police referred to above be bad clearly stated that the truck was returned to him after 11 months which would mean March, 1.965. Thus even in respect of the surrender of the truck he bad made two different statements as regards the timing of the surrender and therefore he was rightly disbelieved.
19. Another important aspect considered by the learned Single Judge, in respect of the contention of Muhammad Amin that the truck was surrendered to him in December, 1964, was that in spite of the fact that Jamil had promised to pay Rs.10,000 to Muhammad Amin within a month of April, 1964; but had failed to pay the same, Muhammad Amin had never made. Any effort to get back the truck from Muhammad Jamil from April 1964, till December, 1964, and did not even send a notice to Muhammad Jamil and this was regarded as strange conduct on the part of Muhammad Amin and was considered as not worth being relied upon. In view of these circumstances the Exhs. 9/1 and 9/3 which are merely admissions of Ghulam Nabi that he had received the truck from Muhammad Amin on 29th March, 1965, was hardly worth any credence and therefore they are to be discarded, especially in view of the fact that there is no reliable evidence from any independent source to support Exhs. 9/1 and 9/3.
20. The last contention of Mr. Sami Ahmed was that since the learned Single Judge has given a decree of Rs.8,500 in favour of Ghulam Nabi as against Muhammad Amin, therefore, it means that the Single Judge has considered Ghulam Nabi as a credible witness and hence Exhs. 9/1 and Exh.
9/3 should have also been believed which showed that Ghulam Nabi had taken over the possession of truck from Muhammad Amin. We are not impressed by this argument as we find that the decree in favour of Ghulam Nabi against appellant to the extent of Rs.8,500 is not based upon testimony of Ghulam Nabi alone but the same is also based on the admission of the appellant that he had received a cheque of Rs.8,500 from Ghulam Nabi on 26-3-1965 and he had encashed the same on 27-3-1965. In view of such admission made by the appellant, he cannot challenge the decree of Rs.8,500 in favour of Ghulam Nabi and he cannot further contend that Ghulam Nabi should have been believed in toto. We find that Ghulam Nabi had not been believed by the learned Judge in respect of the possession of the truck but the admission of the appellant in respect of encashment of the cheque of Rs.8,500, was the basic factor responsible -for the decree of Rs.8,500 against the appellant.
21. In this view of the matter the appeal is not found to be having any merit and it is hereby dismissed with costs.