Bangalore District Court
M/S Elen Transports vs Shalini on 19 April, 2025
KABC170084862020
IN THE COURT OF LXXXIII ADDL. CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE,
COMMERCIAL COURT, BENGALURU (CCH-84)
Present: Sri S. Sudindranath, LL.M., M.B.L.,
LXXXIII ADDL. CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE
BENGALURU.
COM.O.S.No.250/2019
Dated on this 19th day of April 2025
Plaintiff/s M/S ELEN TRANSPORTS
Rep. by its Proprietor
Mr. Shreedar Reddy N.
S/o Neth Reddy,
Aged about 33 years,
having office at No.5,
3rd Main Road,
Madiwala New Extension,
Bengaluru-560 068.
(By Sri B.T. Prasanna Kumar, Advocate)
// versus //
Defendant/s 1. SMT. SHALINI
W/o Mr. Dwarkish Prabhakar,
Proprietor of FARS,
2. SRI DWARAKESH PRABHAKAR
Director / Authorised Representative
of FARS, No.51 Srirangan Street
No.5, Dadagapatti, Salem,
Tamil Nadu-636 007.
And Also At No.679, 12th Cross,
7th Block, Jayanagar
Bengaluru-560 070.
(Rep. by Sri. Dilip Kumar I.S, Advocate)
2
CT 1390_Com.O.S.No.250-2019_Judgment.doc
KABC170084862020
Date of Institution of suit : 30/08/2019
Nature of the suit : Recovery of money
Date of commencement of : 27/09/2022
recording of the evidence
Date on which the : 19/04/2025
Judgment was pronounced.
: Year/s Month/s Day/s
Total duration
05 07 20
JUDGMENT
This is a suit filed by the plaintiff, which is a
proprietorship concern, against defendant No. 1 and 2, who
are husband and wife, for mandatory injunction, for
directing the defendants to return the suit schedule crane to
the custody of the plaintiff and for recovery of the sum of
Rs. 24 lakhs, along with interest, towards the monthly rental
payable for the suit schedule crane.
2. The case of the plaintiff in brief is that, the plaintiff is a
proprietorship concern belonging to one Mr. Sridhar Reddy,
which is in the business of hiring cranes. The plaintiff is the
owner of suit schedule tower crane, having purchased the
same from Sandstone Infra Projects Private Limited. The
defendants, who are also in the business of hiring cranes,
3
CT 1390_Com.O.S.No.250-2019_Judgment.doc
KABC170084862020
approached the plaintiff to hire the suit schedule tower
crane for a project at Royal Enfield Tech Centre, Tamil
Nadu, under the letter of award dated 31-7-2017. As per the
letter of award, the defendants had to pay a monthly rental
of Rs. 4,50,000 towards the hiring charges. Apart from that,
Rs. 4 lakhs was payable towards erecting and dismantling
charges and Defendants also had to pay separate
transportation charges. Accordingly, the defendants were
regularly paying the monthly rental. After completion of the
project in Tamil Nadu, the defendants sought permission
from the plaintiff to hire the suit schedule crane for a new
project at Pune, for which the defendants agreed to pay a
monthly rental of Rs. 4 lakhs. However, after shifting the
suit schedule tower crane to Pune, the defendants stopped
paying the rental and instead started claiming that they are
the owners of the suit schedule crane. This has prompted
the plaintiff to file the present suit for mandatory injunction
directing the defendants to deliver the suit schedule crane
to the plaintiff. Insofar as the arrears of monthly rental
towards the said suit schedule crane are concerned, it is the
case of the plaintiff that from August 2018 upto date of
4
CT 1390_Com.O.S.No.250-2019_Judgment.doc
KABC170084862020
filing of the suit, the defendants are liable to pay Rs . 46
lakhs towards the arrears of monthly rental. But for the
purpose of the present suit, the plaintiff has restricted the
claim only for 6 months rental, that is, for 24 lakhs, on the
ground that the suit schedule crane became operative at
the site from September 2018 and was used only for a
period of 6 months. With these pleadings, the suit is filed
for mandatory injunction directing the defendants to deliver
the suit schedule crane to the custody of the plaintiff and
for recovery of Rs. 24 lakhs along with interest towards the
arrears of monthly rental payable from September 2018 for
a period of 6 months.
3. On issuance of suit summons, the defendants entered
appearance through counsel and filed a detailed written
statement, essentially contending that, it was the defendant
No. 1 through defendant No. 2 who has purchased the suit
schedule tower crane from Sandstone Infra Projects under
invoice dated 4-11-2016. It is pleaded that, in fact, the
vendor namely Sandstone Infra Projects had taken a loan on
the security of the said tower crane from Reliance Finance
and it was the defendant No. 2 who interacted with the
5
CT 1390_Com.O.S.No.250-2019_Judgment.doc
KABC170084862020
financier namely Reliance Finance Company and it was also
defendant No. 2 who has cleared the loan to Reliance
Finance and obtained NOC. In so far as the letter of award
dated 31-7-2017 pleaded in the plaint as the document
under which the defendant took the suit schedule crane on
hire from the plaintiff, it is pleaded that it is a fabricated
document and the plaintiff is only a transporter, facilitating
transport of the crane. It was specifically denied that the
defendants ever paid monthly rental on the basis of the said
letter of award. In this regard, it was pleaded that no GST
bills are produced to show the payment of GST in respect of
monthly rental allegedly paid by the defendants to the
plaintiff and therefore it was pleaded that the defendants
have never paid rental and never acknowledged the plaintiff
as the owner of the suit schedule crane. Therefore,
essentially denying the ownership of the plaintiff over the
suit schedule crane and instead contending that it is
defendant No. 1 who is the owner of the same, the
defendants prayed for dismissal of the suit. They also raised
the contention that, this court does not have the territorial
jurisdiction since the suit schedule crane is not situated
6
CT 1390_Com.O.S.No.250-2019_Judgment.doc
KABC170084862020
within the jurisdiction of this court. With these pleadings,
the defendants prayed for dismissal of the suit.
4. On the basis of the rival pleadings, the following issues
are framed;
(1) Whether the plaintiff proves its
ownership of the schedule crane?
(2) Whether the plaintiff proves that the
defendant had taken the schedule
crane on hire from the plaintiff by
agreeing to pay Rs. 4,50,000 per
month as hire charges and Rs.
4,00,000 towards erecting and
dismantling charges?
(3) Whether the plaintiff proves that the
defendant has failed to make payment
of hire charges and also failed to
deliver the schedule crane to the
plaintiff?
7
CT 1390_Com.O.S.No.250-2019_Judgment.doc
KABC170084862020
(4) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the
mandatory injunction prayed in the
suit?
(5) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to
recovery of Rs. 24,00,000 from the
defendant with interest as prayed?
(6) What order or decree?
5. In the trial, the proprietor of the plaintiff namely, Mr.
Sridhar Reddy examined himself as PW-1 and got marked
Ex. P1 to P54. Further, in the cross-examination of DW-1 on
behalf of the plaintiff, Ex. P55 to P58 were marked. In the
rebuttal evidence, the defendant No. 2 who is the husband
of defendant No. 1 examined himself as DW-1. On behalf of
the defendant, in the cross-examination of PW-1 itself, Ex.
D1 and D2 had been marked and in the chief examination of
DW-1, Ex. D3 to D13 were marked.
6. After closure of evidence of both sides, I have heard
the arguments of both sides and perused the records of the
case.
7. My answer to the issues are as follows;
8
CT 1390_Com.O.S.No.250-2019_Judgment.doc
KABC170084862020
Issue No. 1 : In the affirmative.
Issue No. 2 and 3 : As per finding.
Issue No. 4 : In the affirmative.
Issue No. 5 : In the negative.
Issue No. 6 : As per final order for the
following;
REASONS.
Issue No. 1 to 5:-
8. These issues require common discussion and hence
considered together.
9. The case of the plaintiff in brief is that, the plaintiff is a
proprietorship concern belonging to one Mr. Sridhar Reddy,
which is in the business of hiring cranes. The plaintiff is the
owner of suit schedule tower crane, having purchased the
same from Sandstone Infra Projects Private Limited. The
defendants, who are also in the business of hiring cranes,
approached the plaintiff to hire the suit schedule tower
crane for a project at Royal Enfield Tech Centre, Tamil
Nadu, under the letter of award dated 31-7-2017. As per the
9
CT 1390_Com.O.S.No.250-2019_Judgment.doc
KABC170084862020
letter of award, the defendants had to pay a monthly rental
of Rs. 4,50,000 towards the hiring charges. Apart from that,
Rs. 4 lakhs was payable towards erecting and dismantling
charges and Defendants also had to pay separate
transportation charges. Accordingly, the defendants were
regularly paying the monthly rental. After completion of the
project in Tamil Nadu, the defendants sought permission
from the plaintiff to hire the suit schedule crane for a new
project at Pune, for which the defendants agreed to pay a
monthly rental of Rs. 4 lakhs. However, after shifting the
suit schedule tower crane to Pune, the defendants stopped
paying the rental and instead started claiming that they are
the owners of the suit schedule crane. This has prompted
the plaintiff to file the present suit for mandatory injunction
directing the defendants to deliver the suit schedule crane
to the plaintiff. Insofar as the arrears of monthly rental
towards the said suit schedule crane are concerned, it is the
case of the plaintiff that from August 2018 upto date of
filing of the suit, the defendants are liable to pay Rs . 46
lakhs towards the arrears of monthly rental. But for the
purpose of the present suit, the plaintiff has restricted the
10
CT 1390_Com.O.S.No.250-2019_Judgment.doc
KABC170084862020
claim only for 6 months rental, that is, for 24 lakhs, on the
ground that the suit schedule crane became operative at
the site from September 2018 and was used only for a
period of 6 months. With these pleadings, the suit is filed
for mandatory injunction directing the defendants to deliver
the suit schedule crane to the custody of the plaintiff and
for recovery of Rs. 24 lakhs along with interest towards the
arrears of monthly rental payable from September 2018 for
a period of 6 months.
10. In support of its case, the proprietor of the plaintiff is
examined as PW1 and got marked Ex. P1 to P58. Amongst
these, Ex. P1 to P54 are marked in the Chief Examination of
PW1. Whereas, Ex. P55 to P58 are marked by confronting to
DW1.
11. Ex. P1 is the agreement dated 4-11-2016 in respect of
the sale of the suit schedule crane by the vendor Sandstone
Infra Projects to Ellen Transport which is the plaintiff. Ex. P2
is the tax invoice issued by the vendors i.e. Stone Infra
Projects in respect of having received sale consideration of
Rs. 45,80,000 from the plaintiff towards the suit schedule
crane. Ex. P3 and P4 are the original title documents in
11
CT 1390_Com.O.S.No.250-2019_Judgment.doc
KABC170084862020
respect of the suit schedule crane being the tax invoice and
certificate issued by the original vendor Jaypee Construction
Equipment Solutions in favour of Sandstone Infra Projects.
Ex. P5 is the letter of award dated 31-7-2017 signed by
defendant No. 2 and it is the case of the plaintiff that it is
under this document that defendants took the suit schedule
crane on rent from the plaintiff. Ex. P6 to P23 are all the
documents in respect of transportation of the suit schedule
crane from Bangalore to Tamil Nadu in pursuance of the
letter of award (Ex. P5) and all these documents are signed
by defendant No. 2 himself on behalf of Ellen Transport
which is the Plaintiff proprietorship concern. Ex. P24, 24 (a),
24 (b) and 25 and 26 are all documents in respect of the
release of the suit schedule crane after it was seized /
detained at the outskirts of Bangalore by the commercial
tax officer. Amongst these, Ex. P24 is the receipt for having
paid Rs. 80,150 to the commercial tax office for the release
of the crane. Ex. P24 (a) is the letter on the letterhead of
plaintiff but which is signed by defendant No. 2 and it is in
pursuance of the said letter that after receiving the sum of
Rs. 80,150 the commercial tax officer has released the suit
12
CT 1390_Com.O.S.No.250-2019_Judgment.doc
KABC170084862020
schedule crane. Ex. P24 (b) is the signature of defendant
No. 2 on Ex. P. 24 (a), which is admitted in the cross-
examination of defendant No. 2 / DW1. Ex. P25 is the
report/mahazar prepared by the commercial tax officer at
the time of releasing the suit schedule crane. Ex. P26 is the
release order. Ex. P27 is the original notice certificate issued
by Reliance Commercial Finance in respect of closure of the
entire loan availed by Sandstone Infra from Reliance. Ex.
P28 and P29 are two receipts issued by Sandstone Infra in
favour of Fars, which is the proprietorship concern of
defendants, for having received Rs. 2,88,000 and Rs.
2,50,000 towards the suit schedule crane. Strangely,
although these receipts are in favour of the defendants,
these receipts are produced by the plaintiff. Ex. P30 is the
bank account statement of Ellen Transport, which is the
Plaintiff proprietorship concern. This bank account
statement is produced to show the transfer of various
amounts between the parties inter se. Ex. P31 to P34 are all
invoices and GST returns. Ex. P31 is invoice raised by the
plaintiff against the proprietorship concern of defendant No.
1 towards monthly rental for September 2017. Ex. P32 are
13
CT 1390_Com.O.S.No.250-2019_Judgment.doc
KABC170084862020
the printouts of the GST website to show that the GST tax
component of Rs. 67,747 (reflected in Ex. P. 31 invoice) has
been paid to the department with respect to the said
invoice. Similarly, Ex. P33 is the invoice raised by plaintiff
against the proprietorship concern of defendant No. 1 for
monthly rental of November 2017. Ex. P34 are the GST
returns printouts to show that the tax component of Rs.
31,468 has been paid to the department. Ex. P35 to P38 are
printouts of emails exchanged between the parties. Ex. P39
is the email issued by Sandstone cancelling the invoice in
favour of defendants and instead reiterating that the suit
schedule crane is sold to the plaintiff. The said cancelled
invoice in favour of the proprietorship concern of defendant
No. 1 named Fars is attached to the said email. Ex. P40 is
the service purchase order issued by Kirby. Ex. P41 is the
legal notice caused by the plaintiff to the defendants. Ex.
P42 to P44 are the postal receipts and returned postal
envelopes. Ex. P45 and P46 are the RPAD acknowledgment
cards. Ex. P47 is the reply caused by the defendants to the
said legal notice. Ex. P48 is the NCR registered by Madiwala
police on the basis of complaint of plaintiff against the
14
CT 1390_Com.O.S.No.250-2019_Judgment.doc
KABC170084862020
defendants. Ex. P49 and P50 are income tax returns of
proprietor of plaintiff named Sreedhar Reddy for the
assessment year 2017-18 and 2018-19. These are produced
to show that in the annexure to the income tax return, the
suit schedule tower crane is shown as an asset of the
plaintiff. Ex. P51 is 65B certificate. Ex. P52 is consignment
bill for sending equipment from Chennai to Khandala, Pune.
Ex. P53 is a delivery challan. Ex. P54 is the related eway bill.
Ex. P55 is visiting card of Fars, which is the proprietorship
concern of defendant No. 1. Ex. P56 is letter by Fars dated
14-3-2016 regarding closure of rental arrangement in
respect of the crane. However, this is before the purchase
of the tower crane. Ex. P57 is a letter by defendant No. 2 to
Sreedhar Reddy, proprietor of the plaintiff regarding return
of a vehicle and it is unrelated to the present case but is
produced only to show the relationship between the parties.
Ex. P58 is printout of email issued by Kirbi to Fars regarding
transfer of suit schedule crane from Chennai to Khandala,
Pune.
12. Per contra, the defence raised by the defendants is
that, it was the defendant No. 1 through defendant No. 2
15
CT 1390_Com.O.S.No.250-2019_Judgment.doc
KABC170084862020
who has purchased the suit schedule tower crane from
Sandstone Infra Projects under invoice dated 4-11-2016. It
is pleaded that, in fact, the vendor namely Sandstone Infra
Projects had taken a loan on the security of the said tower
crane from Reliance Finance and it was the defendant No. 2
who interacted with the financier namely Reliance Finance
Company and it was also defendant No. 2 who has cleared
the loan to Reliance Finance and obtained NOC. In so far as
the letter of award dated 31-7-2017 pleaded in the plaint as
the document under which the defendant took the suit
schedule crane on hire from the plaintiff, it is pleaded that it
is a fabricated document and the plaintiff is only a
transporter, facilitating transport of the crane. It was
specifically denied that the defendants ever paid monthly
rental on the basis of the said letter of award. In this regard,
it was pleaded that no GST bills are produced to show the
payment of GST in respect of monthly rental allegedly paid
by the defendants to the plaintiff and therefore it was
pleaded that the defendants have never paid rental and
never acknowledged the plaintiff as the owner of the suit
schedule crane. Therefore, essentially denying the
16
CT 1390_Com.O.S.No.250-2019_Judgment.doc
KABC170084862020
ownership of the plaintiff over the suit schedule crane and
instead contending that it is defendant No. 1 who is the
owner of the same, the defendants prayed for dismissal of
the suit. They also raised the contention that, this court
does not have the territorial jurisdiction since the suit
schedule crane is not situated within the jurisdiction of this
court. With these pleadings, the defendants prayed for
dismissal of the suit.
13. In support of their case, defendant No. 2 is examined
as DW1 and got marked Ex. D1 to D13.
14. Ex. D1 and D2 are marked by confronting to PW1. Ex.
D1 is a letter issued by Sandstone Infra to defendant No. 2
regarding sale of the suit schedule crane for sale
consideration of Rs. 40 lakhs, out of which Rs. 30 lakhs is
payable directly to the financier namely Reliance Capital
Limited and the remaining Rs. 10 lakhs is to be paid to
Sandstone Infra. Ex. D2 is the letter issued by Reliance
Commercial Finance dated 29.09.2016 to defendant No. 2
stating that Rs. 30 lakhs has to be transferred on or before
29.09.2016 for closure of the loan.
17
CT 1390_Com.O.S.No.250-2019_Judgment.doc
KABC170084862020
15. Ex. D. 3 to D. 13 are marked in the chief examination
of DW 1.
16. Ex. D3 is the agreement dated 30.09.2016 under
which Sandstone has agreed to transfer the suit schedule
tower crane to defendant No. 1 as proprietrix of FARs. Ex.
D4 is the 65B certificate. Ex. D5 are printouts of emails
exchanged between Reliance Commercial Finance and
defendant No. 2 regarding the negotiations which took
place for closure of the loan. Ex. D6 is another agreement
dated 30.09.2016 under which Sandstone Infra has agreed
to sell the suit schedule tower crane to defendant No. 1. Ex.
D7 is the registration certificate of FARs with the Central
Excise Department along with GST registration details to
show that FARs was registered under GST on 26.09.2017.
Ex. D8 is an email by Sandstone Infra to the defendants
enclosing a letter regarding sale of suit schedule crane to
defendant No. 2. Ex. D9 are bank account statements of
defendant No. 2, one Vimlesh Prabhakaran, who is none but
the brother of defendant No. 2 and of FARs, which is the
proprietorship concern of defendant No. 1. Ex. D10 is a
reply caused by defendants to the legal notice of the
18
CT 1390_Com.O.S.No.250-2019_Judgment.doc
KABC170084862020
plaintiff. Ex. D11 are again printouts of emails exchanged
between the Defendant No. 2 and Reliance, regarding
closure of the loan. Ex. D12 is the 65B certificate. Ex. D13
is a receipt issued by Sandstone Infra for having received 5
lakhs towards the remaining sale consideration for the suit
schedule crane on 30.09.2016 by way of full and final
settlement.
17. Having considered the rival cases set up by both
parties and the oral and documentary evidence on
record, at the outset, the primary question to be decided in
this suit is who is the owner of the suit schedule tower
crane. That is, whether it is the plaintiff or the defendants
because both the parties claim to have purchased the Suit
Schedule Crane from Sandstone Infra.
18. Before proceeding to consider this vital question, I
deem it appropriate to first consider certain technical
contentions raised by the defendants. In the written
statement of the defendants, a specific contention is raised
that this court does not have the territorial jurisdiction to
entertain the present suit, since the movable property, i.e.
the suit schedule crane, which is the subject matter of the
19
CT 1390_Com.O.S.No.250-2019_Judgment.doc
KABC170084862020
suit, is not situated within the jurisdiction of this court.
However, under Section 20 (c) of the CPC, a suit can be
instituted in court within whose jurisdiction a part of the
cause of action has arisen. As per the case of the plaintiff
and as specifically pleaded in the plaint at paragraph 10
and 12, the suit schedule crane was taken on rent by the
defendants from Bangalore and taken to Tamil Nadu to a
project called Royal Enfield Tech Centre. Therefore, it is
clear that part of the cause of action has arisen in
Bangalore within the jurisdiction of this court and therefore
this court has the territorial jurisdiction to entertain the
present suit.
19. At the time of arguments, Learned Counsel for the
defendants pressed into service 3 technical contentions to
argue that the suit itself is not maintainable. Firstly, it was
contended that since there is a dispute raised regarding the
title of the plaintiff to the suit schedule crane, it is
necessary for the plaintiff to seek declaration of his title.
Secondly, it was argued that a suit for mandatory injunction
without seeking recovery of possession of the suit schedule
crane is not maintainable. Thirdly, it was argued that in any
20
CT 1390_Com.O.S.No.250-2019_Judgment.doc
KABC170084862020
event, the plaintiff has to pay ad-valorem court fee on the
value of the Suit Schedule Crane.
20. Let me consider these technical objections one by one.
Insofar as the first contention that the suit is not
maintainable without seeking declaration of title to the suit
schedule crane is concerned, the law is settled that, merely
because the defendant denies the title of the plaintiff will
not compel the plaintiff to seek declaration of title. It is only
where the title of the plaintiff is under a cloud that it
becomes necessary for the plaintiff to sue for declaration of
title. In the case on hand, apart from the other documents
which will be discussed infra, the plaintiff places strong
reliance upon Ex. P5, which is a letter of award signed by
defendant No. 2 himself, to contend that, under Ex. P5,
defendant No. 2 has himself issued a letter of award to take
on hire the suit schedule crane from the plaintiff. If the
plaintiff can prove his case on the basis of the said
document, then certainly there is no need for the plaintiff to
seek a declaration of his title since defendant No. 2 himself,
according to the plaintiff, has issued Ex. P5 taking the suit
schedule crane on rent, which means that the defendants
21
CT 1390_Com.O.S.No.250-2019_Judgment.doc
KABC170084862020
admit the title of the plaintiff to the suit schedule crane. In
these circumstances, if the plaintiff can prove his case to
the above extent, then it means that there is in fact no
cloud over the plaintiff’s title. Therefore, in the facts and
circumstances of the case, there is no need for the plaintiff
to seek declaration of his title to the suit schedule crane.
21. Insofar as the next contention that a suit for
mandatory injunction simpliciter is not maintainable since
the plaintiff is not in possession and the plaintiff should
have sued for recovery of the suit schedule crane is
concerned, it is to be noted that the law laid down by the
Hon’ble Apex Court (Anathula Sudhakar v. P. Buchi
Reddy, (2008) 4 SCC 594) that where the plaintiff is not
in possession, the plaintiff has to sue for possession is
applicable to suits involving immovable properties and not
to suits involving movable property, particularly in the
facts and circumstances of the present case, wherein,
according to the case of the plaintiff, defendant No. 2 has
himself signed Ex. P5 – letter of award for taking the suit
schedule crane on rent from the plaintiff. Therefore, in the
22
CT 1390_Com.O.S.No.250-2019_Judgment.doc
KABC170084862020
facts and circumstances of the case, when it is the case of
the plaintiff that the suit schedule crane was in his
possession and the defendant No. 2 took the suit schedule
crane on rent from the plaintiff under Ex. P5, then it does
not lie in the mouth of the defendants to contend that the
plaintiff ought to have sued for recovery of the crane. It is
sufficient if the plaintiff sues for mandatory injunction
simpliciter to direct the defendants to return the suit
schedule crane to the plaintiff. In this regard, reference may
be made to the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in
the case of Bharat Bhushan Gupta v. Pratap Narain
Verma, (2022) 8 SCC 333 : 2022 SCC OnLine SC
751 at page 344, as follows;
25. So far as the present suit is concerned, the
plaintiff has alleged the defendants to be the
licensees and has sought mandatory injunction
obliging them to remove themselves and their
belongings. Not much of discussion is required to
find that with such pleadings, claim of relief of
mandatory injunction is not unknown to the legal
process. For ready reference, we may refer to
the relevant passage from the decision in Maria
Margarida Sequeira Fernandes [Maria Margarida
Sequeira Fernandes v. Erasmo Jack de Sequeira,
(2012) 5 SCC 370 : (2012) 3 SCC (Civ) 126] as
under : (SCC p. 389, para 65)
23
CT 1390_Com.O.S.No.250-2019_Judgment.doc
KABC170084862020
“65. A suit can be filed by the title-holder for
recovery of possession or it can be one for
ejectment of an ex-lessee or for mandatory
injunction requiring a person to remove
himself or it can be a suit under Section 6 of
the Specific Relief Act to recover possession.”
(Emphasis Supplied)
22. Insofar as the third contention that, for seeking
recovery of the suit schedule crane, the plaintiff ought to
have valued the suit claim on ad valorem valuation of the
crane and not for bare mandatory injunction, no doubt at
first blush, the said contention appears attractive,
particularly in view of Section 23 of the Karnataka Court Fee
and Suit Valuation Act, which requires that in a suit for
movable property, where the subject matter has a market
value, suit has to be valued on such market value. However,
on a closer analysis, it becomes clear that, when according
to the above ruling of the Hon’ble Apex Court and in the
facts and circumstances of the case, when it is open to the
plaintiff to seek mere mandatory injunction simpliciter for
recovery of the suit schedule crane, in view of the fact that
it is the case of the plaintiff that defendant No. 2 took the
24
CT 1390_Com.O.S.No.250-2019_Judgment.doc
KABC170084862020
crane on rent under Ex. P5 from the plaintiff, it becomes
clear that, provided the plaintiff proves his case to the
above extent, it is open to the plaintiff to seek mandatory
injunction simpliciter for return of the crane. Such being the
case, when it is open to the plaintiff to seek mandatory
injunction simpliciter, the plaintiff cannot be compelled to
pay ad valorem court fee on the value of the suit schedule
crane, and the plaintiff, having the liberty to file a suit for
mandatory injunction simpliciter, also has the liberty to pay
the court fee by valuing the suit for Rs. 1000 and paying
court fee of Rs. 25 thereon. Accordingly, none of the legal
contentions raised by the learned counsel for the
defendants is acceptable, and I hold that the suit is
maintainable, and the court has to consider the suit on
merits.
23. Having recorded these findings, let me now turn my
attention to the primary question that arises for
consideration: that is, whether the suit schedule crane
belongs to the plaintiff or to the defendants.
24. In order to decide this question, one crucial fact to be
considered at this stage itself is that there is no dispute
25
CT 1390_Com.O.S.No.250-2019_Judgment.doc
KABC170084862020
between the parties that the earlier owner of the suit
schedule tower crane was Sandstone Infra Pvt. Ltd. This is
because both the plaintiff as well as the defendants contend
that they have purchased the suit schedule crane from the
same Sandstone Infra Pvt. Ltd. Further, it is to be noted that
it is an admitted fact between the parties that the suit
schedule crane, being a tower crane i.e. not a vehicle, will
not be registered with RTO and therefore, will not have any
registration certificate, and therefore there is no possibility
of ascertaining who is the registered owner. Therefore,
the question as to who is the owner of the suit
schedule tower crane has to be decided purely on the
basis of circumstantial evidence.
25. In this regard, one factor which weighs in favour of the
plaintiff is that it is the plaintiff who has produced the
original documents of title in respect of the suit schedule
tower crane. In this regard, it is to be noted that there is
again no dispute between the parties that the earlier owner,
Sandstone Infra Projects Pvt. Ltd., had taken a loan by
hypothecating the suit schedule crane, and the loan was
taken from a financier by the name Reliance Commercial
26
CT 1390_Com.O.S.No.250-2019_Judgment.doc
KABC170084862020
Finance Ltd. No doubt, it was defendant No. 2 who has
interacted with the said financier for closing the said loan.
The printout of the email exchanged between the parties in
this regard is marked as Ex. D5. The significance of
defendant No. 2 having interacted with the financier for
closing the said loan is considered infra. However, at this
stage, it is relevant to note that in Ex. D5, at page 248,
there is an email issued by the financier Reliance Finance
Ltd. dated 30-09-2016 to defendant No. 2 in which it is
stated that Reliance Finance has the original invoice issued
by Jaypee Constructions, and the financier will issue the No
Due certificate after the closure of the loan and these are
the two documents which the financier has to issue on
closure of the loan. Therefore, it is clear that it was the
original tax invoice issued by Jaypee Constructions, which
was the title deed of Suit Schedule Crane, deposited with
the financier at the time of availing the loan. After closure of
the loan, the original NOC is issued by the financier.
26. Therefore, it is obvious that the person with the
original title deed and original NOC for closure of the loan is
the owner of the schedule crane. It is crucial to note that
27
CT 1390_Com.O.S.No.250-2019_Judgment.doc
KABC170084862020
the original tax invoice issued by Jaypee Constructions in
favour of the earlier owner Sandstone has been produced
by the plaintiff at Ex. P3 and P4. Further, the original NOC
issued by Reliance Finance is also produced by the plaintiff
at Ex. P27. Therefore, the fact that the original title
deed in respect of the suit schedule crane and the
original NOC are produced by the plaintiff is a factor
that goes in favour of the plaintiff’s case to prove
that the plaintiff is the lawful owner of the suit
schedule crane.
27. As already noted supra, the tower crane is not a
registered vehicle with the RTO, and therefore there is no
RC or Registration Certificate to show who is the registered
owner of this crane. Therefore, the only document that can
be produced to ascertain who is the owner of the tower
crane is the invoice to show that the sale consideration for
the tower crane has been paid to the previous owner. In this
regard, both sides have produced agreement for sale
executed by the admitted previous owner, namely
Sandstone Infra Projects, and both sides have produced tax
invoice issued by Sandstone Infra Projects regarding the
28
CT 1390_Com.O.S.No.250-2019_Judgment.doc
KABC170084862020
receipt of sale consideration. However, the sale agreements
are not decisive because in the sale agreements at Ex. P1 in
favor of the plaintiff and at Ex. D3 and D6 in favor of
defendant No. 1, it is only stated that Sandstone Infra
Projects, has agreed to sell the tower crane. However, the
agreement to sell the tower crane in the future will not
transfer the title in the tower crane. Therefore, the
agreements at Ex. P1 in favor of the plaintiff and the
agreements at Ex. D3 and D6 in favor of defendant No. 1
will not show the transfer of title in the tower crane from
Sandstone Infra Projects to either the plaintiff or defendant
No. 1, respectively. Ultimately, the title in the tower
crane will flow to the purchaser on payment of the
sale consideration under the invoice.
28. In this regard, the plaintiff has produced the tax
invoice at Ex. P2, which purports to be issued by the
admitted previous owner, namely Sandstone Infra Projects.
The perusal of Ex. P2 discloses that it is a tax invoice under
which Sandstone Infra Projects acknowledges receipt of Rs.
40 lakhs plus 14.5% VAT, i.e., a total sum of Rs. 45,80,000
from the plaintiff, Sridhar Reddy, towards the suit schedule
29
CT 1390_Com.O.S.No.250-2019_Judgment.doc
KABC170084862020
tower crane. This Ex. P2 is admitted by DW1 in his cross-
examination as follows:
At paragraph 49 of the cross-examination
of DW1 dated 7-1-2025, he has stated as
follows: “It is true to suggest that Ex. P24
(a) is a letter written by me. It is true to
suggest that in the subject of Ex. P24 (a),
the invoice is stated as invoice No. 007. It
is true to suggest that said invoice No.
007 is the same invoice which is at Ex. P2.
It is true to suggest that I referred to the
bill at Ex. P2 while writing the letter to
the tax authorities to collect the tax from
the plaintiff. It is true to suggest that as
on the date of writing of the letter at Ex.
P24 (a), I was aware that the bill at Ex. P2
is issued in the name of the plaintiff.”
Again, at paragraph 50 of the same cross-
examination, DW1 has stated as follows:
“It is true to suggest that the signature on
30
CT 1390_Com.O.S.No.250-2019_Judgment.doc
KABC170084862020Ex. P2 is that of Sachin Agarwal and since
the witness has admitted the said
signature is that of Sachin Agarwal, the
said signature is now marked as Ex. P2
(a).”
Again, at paragraph 54, DW1 has stated
as follows: “It is true to suggest that I
have accepted the correctness of the
invoice at Ex. P2.”
29. From the above admissions given by DW1, i.e.,
defendant No. 2, in cross-examination, it becomes clear that
Ex. P2, which is the invoice issued by the admitted previous
owner Sandstone Infra Projects Pvt. Ltd. acknowledging
receipt of the entire sale consideration of Rs. 40 lakhs plus
GST from the plaintiff, is an admitted document. As already
noted, the only title document which can be produced to
show who is the owner of the suit schedule crane is the tax
invoice to show the payment of the entire sale
consideration to the previous owner. Therefore, when the
plaintiff has produced the earlier title documents in respect
31
CT 1390_Com.O.S.No.250-2019_Judgment.doc
KABC170084862020of the suit schedule crane and also produced the tax invoice
to show the payment of the entire sale consideration to the
admitted previous owner, and such a tax invoice is admitted
by DW1, it follows that the plaintiff has proved that the
plaintiff is the absolute owner of the suit schedule crane.
30. It is to be noted that, at an undisputed point in time,
when the suit schedule crane was seized / detained by the
commercial tax officer at the outskirts of Bangalore,
defendant No. 2 wrote the letter as per Ex. P24 (a). As
already noted, in his cross-examination, DW1 admits that
he wrote such a letter and DW1 also admits that in the
subject of the said letter, he referred to the same invoice,
which is marked as Ex. P2. Therefore, it becomes clear that
at an undisputed point in time, the tax invoice in favor of
the plaintiff was acted upon by the parties. All this clearly
shows that it is the plaintiff who is the owner of the suit
schedule crane.
31. It was argued by learned counsel for defendants that
in the agreement in favor of the plaintiff at Ex. P1, the sale
consideration is mentioned as Rs. 40 lakhs, whereas in the
tax invoice at Ex. P2, the sale consideration is mentioned as
32
CT 1390_Com.O.S.No.250-2019_Judgment.doc
KABC170084862020Rs. 40 lakhs plus GST component of Rs. 5,80,000, i.e., the
total sale consideration is mentioned as Rs. 45,80,000, and
thereby the genuineness of Ex. P2 was sought to be
challenged. This contention cannot be accepted because of
the above admissions made by DW1 in cross-examination,
which show that DW1 has accepted the correctness of Ex.
P2, and in fact, DW1 himself has relied upon the said tax
invoice at Ex. P2 at an undisputed point in time by citing the
same in the subject when he wrote the letter at Ex. P24 (a)
to the commercial tax officer.
32. It was sought to be argued by learned counsel for
defendants, by placing reliance upon certain suggestions
put to PW1 in cross-examination, that the original title
deeds of the suit schedule crane, i.e., Ex. P3 and P4, fell into
the hands of the plaintiff since defendant No. 2 was using
the premises of the plaintiff for office purposes. This
contention cannot be accepted because there is no pleading
in the written statement in this regard and, therefore,
without foundation in the pleadings, it appears this
contention is raised for the first time in the cross-
33
CT 1390_Com.O.S.No.250-2019_Judgment.doc
KABC170084862020
examination of PW1 to get over the fact that the plaintiff
has produced the original title deeds from his custody.
33. It was then argued by learned counsel for defendants
that as per the printout of emails at Ex. D5, which are again
produced as Ex. D11, it was defendant No. 2 who transacted
with the Reliance Finance Company for clearing the earlier
loan on the suit schedule tower crane. Apart from this,
strong reliance was placed upon Ex. D1 and D2. Ex. D1 is a
letter from Sandstone Infra Projects stating that the suit
schedule crane will be sold to defendant No. 2 for a sale
consideration of Rs. 40 lakhs, and Ex. D2 is the letter by the
financial company, Reliance Commercial Finance Ltd., to
Defendant No. 2 stating that the settlement amount for
closing the loan is Rs. 30 lakhs, which has to be paid within
29-09-2016. Reliance is also placed upon Ex. D3 and D6,
which are the agreements for sale of the tower crane
executed by Sandstone Infra Projects in favor of the
proprietorship concern of defendant No. 1. Reliance on all
these documents falls to the ground in view of the
admission made by DW1 in his cross-examination at
34
CT 1390_Com.O.S.No.250-2019_Judgment.doc
KABC170084862020
paragraph 93 dated 01-03-2025 (afternoon session) as
follows:
“It is true to suggest that I negotiated the
transaction of the purchase of the tower
crane by keeping the name of the
purchaser in suspense.”
34. Therefore, it is clear that the initial negotiations were
undertaken by defendant No. 2 by keeping the name of the
purchaser open. Therefore, merely because the letter is
initially issued by Sandstone Infra, agreeing to sell the suit
schedule tower crane as per Ex. D1, or the fact that it was
defendant No. 2 who negotiated with the financier for
closing of the loan, or the fact that the previous owner
executed the sale agreements at Ex. D3 and D6 in favor of
Fars, which is the proprietorship concern of defendant No.
1, all recede to the background and are inconsequential.
Ultimately, the question is who has paid the amount
and obtained the tax invoice for having purchased
the suit schedule crane. Again, in this regard, it is to be
noted that different amounts have been transferred by both
35
CT 1390_Com.O.S.No.250-2019_Judgment.doc
KABC170084862020
parties to Sandstone Infra, purportedly for the purchase of
the suit schedule crane. It is to be noted that out of the loan
amount of Rs. 30 lakhs, which was cleared to Reliance
Finance Company, Rs. 25 lakhs has flown from the bank
account of the plaintiff at Ex. P30. The entry in this regard is
found at page 60 of Ex. P-30 dated 29-9-2016, which shows
that Ellen Transport i.e., plaintiff, has transferred Rs.
25,00,058 to Reliance Capital Limited. In this regard, it is
the case of the defendants that on the same day various
amounts were transferred to the plaintiff by the defendants
and by Vimalesh Prabhakar, who is the brother of defendant
No. 2, and using the said amounts, the plaintiff paid Rs. 25
lakhs to Reliance Capital since on that day the banks in
Tamil Nadu, where the defendants have the bank accounts,
were closed due to a festival. Apart from this, there are two
receipts produced by the plaintiff himself at Ex. P-28 and 29
which purport to show that Sandstone Infra Projects has
received Rs. 2,88,000 and Rs. 2,50,000 from Fars, which is
the proprietorship concern of defendant No. 1. Therefore, it
is clear that both parties have paid various amounts to
Sandstone Infra for purchase of the crane. However, it is
36
CT 1390_Com.O.S.No.250-2019_Judgment.doc
KABC170084862020
not the case of either party that the crane was
purchased jointly by both plaintiff and by the
defendants. Therefore, the only inference to be drawn is
that if either party has contributed any amount to the other
party for purchase of the suit schedule crane, it is for such
party to sue for recovery of any such money subject to the
law of limitation. But only on the basis that some money has
been contributed by either party for purchase of the crane,
such party cannot become the owner of the crane.
Ultimately, to decide who is the owner of the crane, what
the court has to see is in whose favour the final tax invoice
is issued acknowledging receipt of the entire sale
consideration and who has been given the custody of the
original title deeds of the suit schedule crane. Both these
factors are in favour of the plaintiff, as already noted supra,
since the original title deeds and the original NOC of
Reliance are produced by the plaintiff and since Ex. P2,
which is the final tax invoice for receipt of the total sale
consideration amount from the plaintiff, is accepted to be a
genuine document by DW1 in his cross-examination, as
already noted supra.
37
CT 1390_Com.O.S.No.250-2019_Judgment.doc
KABC170084862020
35. No doubt, even the defendant has produced a final tax
invoice at Ex. D13, purportedly issued by Sandstone Infra,
stating that on 30.09.2016, Rs. 5 lakhs has been received in
full and final settlement towards the tower crane. However,
DW1 in his cross-examination has candidly admitted at
paragraph 78 of cross-examination dated 01.03.2025
(morning session) as follows;
“If it is suggested to me that the amount
of Rs. 5 lakhs was not paid on 30.09.2016,
I say, actual payment was not made, but
since I had made payment to Reliance, I
requested for some document and
therefore this document was given.”
36. Therefore, on one hand, Ex. D13 purports to show
that on 30.09.2016, Rs. 5 lakhs was paid to Sandstone Infra
in full and final settlement, whereas DW1 himself candidly
admits that on the said day, no payment was made. This
shows that Ex. D13 has absolutely no evidentiary value. On
the other hand, the tax invoice in favour of the plaintiff (Ex.
P.2) is admitted to be a correct document by DW1 himself.
38
CT 1390_Com.O.S.No.250-2019_Judgment.doc
KABC170084862020
37. On the basis of these factors, I have no hesitation in
holding that the plaintiff has proved that it was the plaintiff
who purchased the suit schedule tower crane from
Sandstone Infra Pvt. Ltd. However, the clinching evidence is
yet to follow. In this regard, it is to be noted that Ex. P5 is a
letter of award which is issued by Fars, which is the
proprietorship concern of defendant No. 1, and it is signed
by defendant No. 2, who is the husband of the proprietrix of
Fars. Under the said letter of award, the defendants purport
to take on hire the suit schedule crane and at column No. 2,
the hire charges are stated as Rs. 4,50,000 per month. It is
to be noted that this letter of award is dated 31-7-2017 and
is referred to in paragraph 3 of the plaint and the copy of
the said letter of award was produced as Annexure B of the
plaint. As against this specific document which is pleaded in
the plaint, in the written statement of defendants at para 4,
with reference to said document, it is pleaded as follows;
“The document produced as Annexure B
along with the plaint is a forged and
fabricated document and does not
specify anywhere in respect of the crane
39
CT 1390_Com.O.S.No.250-2019_Judgment.doc
KABC170084862020model No. SS250/70/30(K30/30) has been
sought for hiring. As on the alleged date of
transaction, i.e. Annexure B produced by
the plaintiff is true, then the plaintiff ought
to have produced the IGST bills for the
period 2017 for having raised any bills
against defendant No. 1, claiming the
rentals as mentioned under the fabricated
LOA produced by the plaintiff as
Annexure B, which itself clearly
establishes the fact that said
document is fabricated.”
(Emphasis Supplied)
38. Therefore, in more than one place in the written
statement, it has been asserted that the said letter of
award, which is subsequently marked as Ex. P5, is a
fabricated document.
39. As against this, in his cross-examination, DW1 admits
the said document. At paragraph 60 and 61 of cross-
examination dated 12-2-2025, DW1 has stated as follows;
40
CT 1390_Com.O.S.No.250-2019_Judgment.doc
KABC170084862020
“It is true to suggest that after the crane was
released from the check post, it was kept in
Ananda nilaya till 31-7-2017, which is the date of
Ex. P5. It is true to suggest that I issued Ex.
P5 for the purpose of transporting the
crane from Ananda nilaya to Chennai.
Witness volunteers, I executed Ex. P5 because at
that time the e-way bill was stopped. It is false to
suggest that for the purpose of transporting
there was no need to issue Ex. P5. It is true to
suggest that Ex. P5 is drafted by me. If it is
suggested to me that as per the tenor of Ex. P5, I
have agreed to pay monthly hire charges of Rs.
4,50,000 to Shridhar for the crane, I say there
was no such agreement and I only drafted the
letter only for the purpose of transporting the
crane. If I am asked what was the reason for
fixing specifically Rs. 4,50,000 monthly charges,
I say I only copy-pasted it from a letter of Kirby.
Question: If you are really the owner of the
crane, there was no reason for you to give Ex.
P5?
Answer: I gave Ex. P5 because I had no VAT
or GST of Karnataka and therefore the only
way I could transport the crane to Chennai
was by issuing Ex. P5.”
(Emphasis Supplied)
40. Therefore, it is crystal clear that, whereas in the
written statement the specific plea taken is that Ex. P5 is a
fabricated document, in cross-examination, DW1 not only
41
CT 1390_Com.O.S.No.250-2019_Judgment.doc
KABC170084862020
admits that Ex. P5 is drafted and signed by him but also
admits that he issued Ex. P5 for the purpose of transporting
the crane to Chennai. However, his only contention is that
because he had no VAT or GST registration of Karnataka
state, in order to transport the crane to Chennai, he issued
Ex. P5. This is clearly an afterthought, which plea has never
been taken in the written statement. As rightly argued by
learned counsel for the plaintiff, if really the suit schedule
tower crane belonged to the defendants, then the
defendants would never have acknowledged the plaintiff as
the owner by issuing a letter of award in favour of the
plaintiff, hiring the suit schedule crane on monthly hire of
Rs. 4,50,000. Such a contention cannot be believed because
there is no such plea taken in the written statement and
instead in the written statement there is a total denial of Ex.
P5 as a fabricated document.
41. Therefore, Ex. P5 is the clinching document to
show that at an undisputed point of time, the defendants
themselves admitted and acknowledged the plaintiff to be
the owner of the suit schedule crane and therefore issued
the letter of award in favour of the plaintiff, hiring the suit
42
CT 1390_Com.O.S.No.250-2019_Judgment.doc
KABC170084862020
schedule crane from the plaintiff on monthly hire of Rs.
4,50,000 and on the strength of Ex. P5 took away the suit
schedule crane from the plaintiff’s place in Athibele (Ananda
Nilaya) to Chennai.
42. At this stage itself, the contention that, both in the
invoice of the plaintiff at Ex. P2 and in the letter of award at
Ex. P5, there is no reference to the suit schedule crane may
be dealt with. This contention is only to be stated to be
rejected because, as already noted supra, DW1 has
admitted that while writing a letter to the commercial tax
officer at Ex. P24 (a) for receiving the tax from the plaintiff,
DW1 himself has referred to the invoice at Ex. P2. This
letter was written when the suit schedule crane was seized
by the Commercial Tax Officer at the outskirts of Bangalore.
Therefore, there is no gainsaying the fact that there is no
dispute that Ex. P2 invoice in fact refers to the suit schedule
crane. Similarly, in so far as Ex. P5 is concerned, in the
above cross-examination DW1 admits that he issued Ex. P5
for the purpose of transporting the suit schedule tower
crane from Ananda Nilaya to Chennai. This again clearly
shows that Ex. P5 is in respect of the suit schedule tower
43
CT 1390_Com.O.S.No.250-2019_Judgment.doc
KABC170084862020
crane. Therefore, the contention of the defendants that in
Ex. P2 and Ex. P5, the reference No. of the tower crane is
not mentioned and therefore, these documents do not
pertain to the suit schedule tower crane stands rejected.
43. What happened after the tower crane was shifted from
Ananda Nilaya to Chennai on the strength of Ex. P5 is also
relevant. As already noted supra, in the written statement,
a specific plea is taken that IGST bills are not produced to
show the payment of monthly hire charges by defendants to
the plaintiff on the basis of Ex. P5. This contention cannot
be accepted because plaintiff has produced the bills along
with the GST returns at Ex. P.31-34. Ex. P31 is the invoice
towards monthly hire charges for September 2017 and Ex.
P33 is the invoice for monthly hire charges for November
2017. Ex. P32 and P34 are the GST returns to show that the
GST component of the said invoices has been deposited by
the plaintiff to the department. Therefore, at an undisputed
point of time, GST bills were raised towards monthly hire
charges and GST component has been deposited to the
department. No doubt, the invoices for the subsequent
months up to June 2018 when the crane was allegedly
44
CT 1390_Com.O.S.No.250-2019_Judgment.doc
KABC170084862020
transferred from Chennai to Khandala, Pune are not
produced. However, the fact remains that at least for two
months at an undisputed point of time, GST bills were raised
and GST component deposited. This shows that Ex. P5 was
acted upon and monthly hire charges were paid by the
defendants to the plaintiff towards the suit schedule crane
and therefore, at this point of time, the defendants having
shifted the crane from Ananda Nilaya on the basis of Ex. P5
cannot now turn around and claim title in themselves in the
suit schedule crane.
44. Another very important factor which has occurred
subsequent to Ex. P5 is brought out in the cross-
examination of DW1 at paragraph 51 and 52 of cross-
examination dated 7-1-2025 as follows;
“It is true to suggest that after the purchase of
the tower crane, it is the responsibility of the
purchaser to attend to repairs if any. It is true to
suggest that Ex. P38 relates to repair of the
tower crane. Witness volunteers, repair of a
small part. It is true to suggest that second page
of Ex. P38 is the bill relating to the said repair of
tower crane and the said bill is now marked as
Ex. P38 (a). It is true to suggest that the
message as per Ex. P38 sent by the supplier to
pay the bill as per Ex. P38 (a), the said message
45
CT 1390_Com.O.S.No.250-2019_Judgment.doc
KABC170084862020has been forwarded by FAB and RIG to the
plaintiff Sridhar Reddy as per the first email at
Ex. P38 and the said email is now marked as Ex.
P38 (b). It is true to suggest that the email id
[email protected] belongs to my company,
i.e. FARS.
It is true to suggest that bank account No.
097001505278 in ICICI Bank belongs to me. It is
true to suggest that sum of Rs. 1,58,627
was transferred by Sridhar Reddy to the
above account. If it is suggested to me
that said amount is exactly the same
amount as represented in the bill at Ex.
P38(a), I say it might be. It is false to suggest
that said amount was sent by Sridhar Reddy
because Sridhar Reddy was the person liable to
bear the repair charges. It is false to suggest
that email was forwarded to Sridhar Reddy as
per Ex. P38(b) only because Sridhar Reddy was
the person liable to bear the repair charges.”
(Emphasis Supplied)
45. From the above cross-examination, it becomes crystal
clear that after the crane was transferred from Ananda
Nilaya to Chennai on the strength of Ex. P5, the crane
sustained certain repairs. The bill in respect of the said
repairs was forwarded by the defendants to the plaintiff and
the plaintiff has transferred the exact same amount as the
bill amount for repair, that is Rs. 1,58,627, to the bank
46
CT 1390_Com.O.S.No.250-2019_Judgment.doc
KABC170084862020
account of defendant no. 2. This clearly shows that it is the
plaintiff who is the owner of the crane and defendants were
only the hirers because if really the defendants were the
owners and Ex. P5 was executed only for the purpose of
transporting the crane to Chennai, then there was no
reason for the defendants to forward the repair bill to the
plaintiff and receive the bill amount from the plaintiff. It is
well known that actions speak louder than words and
therefore at this point of time, however much the
defendants may contend that they are the owners of the
suit-schedule crane, the above conduct of the parties shows
that at an undisputed point of time, the defendants treated
the plaintiff as the owner of the crane since the repair bill of
the crane was forwarded to the plaintiff and the bill amount
was received from the plaintiff by the defendants.
46. In conclusion, it is to be noted that the original title
documents of the suit-schedule crane and the original NOC
issued by the financier is produced from the custody of the
plaintiff and there is no proper explanation by Defendants
and there is no pleading in the written statement to show
how the said documents came into the custody of the
47
CT 1390_Com.O.S.No.250-2019_Judgment.doc
KABC170084862020
plaintiff, if plaintiff is not the owner. Secondly, the tax
invoice in favor of the plaintiff at Ex. P2 to show that the
previous owner has sold the suit-schedule crane to the
plaintiff is admitted by DW1. Thirdly, admittedly the crane
was shifted from the possession of the plaintiff to Chennai
by the defendants by executing Ex. P5 (letter of award)
which purports to show that defendants took the suit-
schedule crane on hire from the plaintiff on monthly hire
charges of Rs. 4,50,000. The plea that said Ex. P5 was
executed for collateral purpose only for the purpose of
shifting the crane since defendants did not have VAT or GST
registration in the state of Karnataka has not been taken in
the written statement and in the written statement it is only
pleaded that Ex. P5 is a fabricated document whereas later
on in evidence DW1 admits his signature on Ex. P5. Finally,
after the crane was shifted to Chennai on the strength of Ex.
P5, repair bill for the crane is forwarded and the repair
amount is received from the plaintiff. In view of the above
discussion, I have no hesitation in holding that plaintiff has
proved that plaintiff is the absolute owner of the suit-
schedule crane. Accordingly, I answer issue no. 1 in
48
CT 1390_Com.O.S.No.250-2019_Judgment.doc
KABC170084862020
the affirmative. Once it is proved that the plaintiff is the
owner of the suit schedule crane, it follows that the
defendants who had taken the suit schedule crane on hire
under Ex. P5 cannot now claim right to hold on to the same
and therefore, plaintiff is entitled to mandatory injunction
directing the defendants to deliver the suit schedule crane
to the custody of the plaintiff and accordingly, I answer
issue No. 4 in the affirmative.
47. Now, turning to the question whether the plaintiff is
entitled to recovery of Rs. 24 lakhs towards arrears of hire
charges from the defendants is concerned, it is to be noted
that, in the plaint, at paragraph 4, it is pleaded that, in
August 2018 the suit-schedule crane was shifted from Tamil
Nadu to Pune and whereas the earlier hire charges when
the suit-schedule crane was in Tamil Nadu was Rs. 4,50,000
per month, it was agreed between the parties that after
shifting the crane to Pune, the hire charges will be Rs. 4
lakhs per month, as pleaded at paragraph 5 of the plaint. It
is the case of the plaintiff that after the crane was shifted to
Pune, monthly hire charges have not been paid even for a
single month and therefore, it is the case of the plaintiff that
49
CT 1390_Com.O.S.No.250-2019_Judgment.doc
KABC170084862020
in fact defendants are liable to pay total hire charges of Rs.
46 lakhs as pleaded at paragraph 8 of the plaint, but, in
paragraph 10 of the plaint it is pleaded that since the crane
became operative only from September 2018 and was used
for a period of 6 months, the plaintiff is restricting claim to
Rs. 24 lakhs. Therefore, it is clear that the sum of Rs. 24
lakhs which is prayed for under prayer B of the plaint is for
monthly hire charges of the suit-schedule crane from
September 2018 for a period of 6 months.
48. In the cross-examination of PW1 at paragraph 27
dated 11-07-2023, PW1 stated as follows:
“I have not produced any documents to
show that defendant had agreed to pay Rs.
4 lakhs towards hire charges excluding GST
for the month of August 2018. I have not
produced any invoice for claiming hire
charges from the defendant from August
2018.”
49. Therefore, firstly, whereas the plaintiff is claiming
monthly hire charges at the rate of Rs. 4 lakhs per month
50
CT 1390_Com.O.S.No.250-2019_Judgment.doc
KABC170084862020
from September 2018, PW1 admits no document is
produced to show the said rate of monthly hire charges.
Secondly, the plaintiff admits that till date he has not raised
any invoices claiming the said amount.
50. It is to be noted that from the invoices raised towards
monthly charges for earlier period of September 2017 and
November 2017 (Ex.P. 31 & 33) when the crane was being
worked in Tamil Nadu, although under Ex. P5 during that
time, the agreed monthly hire charges was Rs. 4,50,000,
invoices are raised for lesser amounts–Rs. 3,76,374 for
September 2017 (excluding GST) as per Ex. P31 and Rs.
1,74,825 for November 2017 (excluding GST) as per Ex. P.
33. The reason is obvious: although the monthly hire charge
is a fixed amount, the actual monthly hire charge claimed is
on the basis of work extracted from the suit schedule crane.
51. This is also the reason why plaintiff has candidly
admitted that he is restricting his claim only for 6 months
because the suit schedule crane was worked in Pune only
for 6 months. No material is produced, to show that the
crane was actually worked in Pune. Further, as already
noted, no invoices have been raised. Therefore, the only
51
CT 1390_Com.O.S.No.250-2019_Judgment.doc
KABC170084862020
conclusion to be drawn is that plaintiff is not entitled to
recovery of Rs. 24,00,000 as claimed. Accordingly, I
answer issue No. 5 in the negative.
52. Issue No. 2 is framed for the plaintiff to prove that
defendant had taken the suit schedule crane on hire from
the plaintiff by agreeing to pay Rs. 4,50,000 per month as
hire charges and Rs. 4,00,000 towards erecting and
dismantling charges. These are the charges fixed under Ex.
P5 when the crane was shifted to Chennai. However, as
already noted, the plaintiff is not claiming any monthly
charges when the suit schedule crane was in Tamil Nadu
and claim is made only for monthly hire charges after the
crane was shifted to Pune. Secondly, plaintiff is not claiming
any amount towards erecting and dismantling charges. The
fact of hiring the Suit Schedule Crane under Ex. P5 is
relevant only for the purpose of answering issue No. 1
whether plaintiff is the owner of the Suit Schedule Crane,
which I have already answered Supra by holding that Ex. P5
is proved to be a valid document under which defendants
took the suit schedule crane on hire. However, the question
whether the defendants agreed to pay Rs 4,50,000 as
52
CT 1390_Com.O.S.No.250-2019_Judgment.doc
KABC170084862020
monthly hire charges and Rs 4,00,000 as erecting and
dismantling charges, does not really arise for consideration
in the present suit, since no relief is claimed in respect
thereof and accordingly, I answer issue No. 2.
53. Insofar as issue No. 3 is concerned, issue No. 3
consists of two aspects: whether defendant has failed to
make payment of hire charges, which has to be answered
against the plaintiff, and the second part of issue No. 3 is
whether defendant has failed to deliver the suit schedule
crane to the plaintiff, which is already answered in favor of
the plaintiff supra.
54. Accordingly, I answer the issues by holding that
plaintiff is entitled to mandatory injunction for return
of the suit schedule crane but plaintiff is not entitled
to recovery of Rs. 24 lakhs from the defendants. In so
far as the costs of the suit are concerned, considering that
plaintiff has been held to be not entitled to the relief for
recovery of Rs 24 lakhs, in respect of which, ad-valorem
court fee has been paid, I am of the view that, it would not
be appropriate to mulct the defendants with costs of the
53
CT 1390_Com.O.S.No.250-2019_Judgment.doc
KABC170084862020
suit and accordingly I hold that, the parties shall bear their
respective costs.
Issue No. 6.
55. Having answered issue No. 1 to 5 as above, I proceed
to pass the following :-
ORDER.
The suit is partly decreed.
It is held that the plaintiff is entitled
to mandatory injunction, directing the
defendants to deliver the suit schedule
crane to the plaintiff, within 30 days from
today.
The prayer for recovery of Rs. 24
lakhs along with interest from the
defendants is refused.
Considering the facts and
circumstances of the case, there shall be
no order as to cost.
Office to draw decree accordingly.
54
CT 1390_Com.O.S.No.250-2019_Judgment.doc
KABC170084862020Office to issue soft copy of this
Judgment to both sides, by email, if
furnished.
[Dictated using MacWhisper Pro 10.8.1, transcript revised,
corrected, signed and then pronounced by me in open court
on this the 19th day of April, 2025]
Digitally signed by
SUDINDRA SUDINDRA NATH S
NATH S Date: 2025.04.23
15:25:07 +0530(S. Sudindranath)
LXXXIII ADDL.CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE,
COMMERCIAL COURT, BENGALURUANNEXURE
1. List of witnesses examined on behalf of
Plaintiff/s:
PW1 : Sri Shreedhar Reddy N.
2. List of witnesses examined on behalf of
Defendant/s:
DW1 Sri Dwarakesh
3. List of documents marked on behalf of
Plaintiff/s:
Ex.P1 : Sale of Tower Crane entered with Sandstone Infra
Project (P)Ltd. on 4.11.2016.
Ex.P2 : Invoice Dt:4.11.2016 issued by Sandstone
Ex.P3 : Invoice Dt:5.5.2010 for purchase of Tower Crane
by Sandstone.
55
CT 1390_Com.O.S.No.250-2019_Judgment.doc
KABC170084862020Ex.P4 : Certificate of the vendor Dt:12.5.2010 for
transporting of Tower Crane to Port Blair.
Ex.P5 : Letter of defendant Dt:31.7.2017.
Ex.P6 : Certificate issued by plaintiff for transfer of the
Tower Crane for rental purpose.
Ex.P7 : Lorry receipt Dt:4.8.2017 Ex.P8 : Lorry receipt Dt:21.8.2017 Ex.P9 : Delivery challan Dt:21.8.2017 Ex.P10 : Lorry receipt Dt:13.8.2017 Ex.P11 : Delivery Challan Dt:13.8.2017 Ex.P12 : Another Lorry receipt Dt:13.8.2017 Ex.P13 : Another Delivery Challan Dt:13.8.2017 Ex.P14 Lorry receipt and delivery challan Dt:13.8.2017 & P15 : Ex.P16 Lorry receipt and delivery challan Dt:13.8.2017 & P17 : Ex.P18 Lorry receipt and delivery challan Dt:13.8.2017 & P19 : Ex.P20 Lorry receipt and delivery challan Dt:19.8.2017 & P21 : Ex.P22 Lorry receipt Dt:19.8.2017 and delivery challan & P23 : Dt:18.8.2017
Ex.P24 : Receipt for payment of Entry Tax Dt:22.11.2016
along with letter of the defendant
Ex.P24(a) Letter of the defendant
Ex.P25 Order of the Commercial Tax Office
Ex.P26 Release order
Ex.P27 : No due certificate issued by Reliance Commercial
Finance Dt:17.10.2016.
Ex.P28 Two receipts given by Sandstone Dt:3.11.2016
& P29:
56
CT 1390_Com.O.S.No.250-2019_Judgment.doc
KABC170084862020Ex.P30 : Bank accounts statement for the period from
1.4.2016 to 31.3.2017.
Ex.P31 : Copy of Invoice Dt:2.11.2017 raised on the
defendant.
Ex.P32 : Printout of GST summary regarding GST payment
on the Invoice is produced in handwritten page
no.65 to 70.
Ex.P33 : Copy of Invoice Dt:6.12.2017 raised on the
defendant.
Ex.P34 : Printout of GST summary regarding GST payment
on the Invoice.
Ex.P35 : Printout of forwarded Email received from
defendant along with attachment.
Ex.P36 : Printout of Email exchanged.
Ex.P37 : Printout of Email sent by the defendant on
7.7.2017.
Ex.P38 : Printout of another Email Dt:3.11.2017 along with
attached invoice.
Ex.P39 : Printout of E-mail Dt:11.3.2019 sent by Sandstone
to the plaintiff and defendant along with one
attachment.
Ex.P40 : Copy of service purchase order received by
defendant from KIRBY.
Ex.P41 : Copy of legal notice. Ex.P42 : Postal receipts. Ex.P43 & Unserved postal covers. P44:
Ex.P43(a) Postal covers are opened in open court and notice
and 44(a) inside the cover.
Ex.P45 Two postal acknowledgments.
& P46
Ex.P47 Reply notice.
Ex.P48 Letter of Madiwala Police along with information
57
CT 1390_Com.O.S.No.250-2019_Judgment.doc
KABC170084862020
Ex.P49 I.T. returns for the year 2017-18 along with
statement of profit and loss account
Ex.P50 I.T. returns of assessment year 2018-19.
Ex.P51 Certificate under Section 65B of the Indian
Evidence Act.
Ex.P52 Lorry receipt.
Ex.P53 E-way bill (delivery challan).
Ex.P54 Printout of e-way bill.
Ex.P55 Visiting card.
Ex.P56 Closure of agreement letter dated 14.03.2016.
Ex.P57 Letter from plaintiff to defendant dated
02.12.2020 Reg. - Return of car.
Ex.P58 E-mail correspondence.
4. List of documents marked on behalf of
Defendant/s:
Ex.D1 Letter of Sandstone Infraprojects dtd. 29.09.2016
reg. Sale of tower crane
Ex.D2 Letter of Reliance Commercial Finance dated
29.09.2016 reg. Settlement of tower crane
Ex.D3 Original equipment purchase and sale agreement
dated 30.09.2016
Ex.D4 Certificate under Section 65B of Indian Evidence
Act
Ex.D5 Printout of email (11 sheets)
Ex.D6 Original equipment purchase and sale agreement
Ex.D7 Printout of GST and service tax website
Ex.D8 Printout of Email with attachment
Ex.D9 Printout of account statement of HDFC, ICICI
Bank and SBI
58
CT 1390_Com.O.S.No.250-2019_Judgment.doc
KABC170084862020
Ex.D10 &Office copy of reply dated 28.05.2019 along
10(a) with RPAD receipt
Ex.D11 Printout of E-mails
Ex.D12 Sec.65(B) Certificate
Ex.D13 Original money receipt.
(S. Sudindranath)
LXXXIII ACC & SJ,
(COMMERCIAL COURT), BENGALURU
[ad_1]
Source link