' A suit for recovery of a sum of Rs,15,000 was filed by respondent No,1 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,1 filed an appeal which was accepted by the learned Additional District Judge and the decree, as prayed for, was granted in favour of respondent Nod vide judgment dated 16-9-1978. Hence this second appeal.
2. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and gone through the evidence on record with his assistance.
3. Before the learned Additional District Judge, respondent No,1 conceded that FECTO Limited (respondent No,2) was not liable to pay the amount in question, and it was only the appellant who was liable in this behalf. As regards the claim of respondent No,1 against the appellant, it was contended that the statement of Muhammad Yousaf, Registration Clerk (D.W.1) wherein he has mentioned that the registration of the tractor (Model 1967) had been made in the name of Sher Muhammad son of Allah Ditta (respondent No,1) has been given undue importance by the learned lower appellate Court. According to the learned counsel, the tractor in question, which was, in fact, meant for respondent No,1, was handed over to his son Sher Muhammad and he fraudulently got it entered in the record of the Excise and Taxation Department in his own name.
' I am afraid, the learned counsel is not right in attempting to brush aside the statement of Muhammad Yousaf D.W. Clearly, the entry in the name of Sher Muhammad qua the tractor, admittedly handed over to him, was not the outcome of some misrepresentation made by Sher Muhammad to the effect that he was the owner thereof. This entry is based on a receipt dated 2- 9-1968 issued by the appellant in the name of Sher Muhammad regarding the purchase of tractor by him. Sher Muhammad had paid a sum of Rs,14,390 to the appellant for purchasing the tractor and in token thereof the said receipt was issued. It is not correct to contend that the said receipt was in lieu of the payment made by respondent No,l. Significantly, respondent No,1 had paid a sum of Rs,15,000 and there is no satisfactory explanation as to why receipt in respect of such payment was restricted to Rs,14,390. The appellant was a dealer and was expected to maintain proper record. There is no explanation forthcoming as to why, after having received a sum of Rs,15,000 from respondent No,1, entry whereof must have been made in the record of the appellant, he was later on issued a receipt for Rs,14,390, and that too in the name of the respondent's son. I agree with the learned Additional District Judge that Sher Muhammad too wished to have his own tractor and he ultimately bought from the appellant. It is admitted position that an alleged amount of Rs,610 was not paid to the appellant.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant wished to persuade me that Sher Muhammad had no independent means to buy a tractor and, therefore, the tractor handed over to him was, in fact, meant for respondent No,l.I regret, I cannot agree. Sher Muhammad, while appearing as P.W.3, has explained that though he did not have independent means of income, the amount of the tractor purchased by him was given to him by his father. He has stated that he was hiring out his tractor.
He did his Matriculate in 1964. There is no improbability in his statement. A father finding his son jobless is likely to help him by advancing money to him so that he can be gainfully employed. In the instant case, Sher Muhammad having been helped by his father Allah Ditta financially, there was no bar in his purchasing a tractor of this own so as to ply the same. The appellant has failed to discharge the onus which shifted on to him after respondent No,1 had led evidence, to prove that the amount of Rs,15.000 advanced to the appellant for the purchase of tractor, had neither been refunded nor a tractor in lieu thereof handed over to him. The evidence on record has been correctly appreciated by the learned Additional District Judge, who has given sound reasons to differ with the findings of the learned Civil Judge on crucial question.
5. There is no force in this appeal. It is dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs.