Writ jurisdiction cannot decide disputed hire-purchase ownership of a vehicle where title turns on factual inquiry.

A writ petition under Article 226 was held unsuitable for deciding whether a lorry attached for sales tax arrears was ly owned by the petitioner under a hire-purchase arrangement. The court noted that the true nature of such transactions depends on surrounding circumstances and evidence, not merely on the form of the agreement. Because title and ownership could not be conclusively resolved without factual inquiry, the dispute had to be pursued in independent civil proceedings. The writ relief was therefore refused, leaving the petitioner to seek appropriate remedies before sale of the vehicle.

---

---

Issues: Whether a writ petition under Article 226 could be used to quash attachment and proposed sale of a lorry for sales tax arrears when ownership under a hire-purchase arrangement was disputed and required factual inquiry.

Analysis: The ownership of the lorry could not be conclusively determined from the hire-purchase documents alone, because the real nature of such transactions may depend on surrounding circumstances and not merely on the form of the agreement. That inquiry required evidence and fact-finding beyond the proper scope of writ jurisdiction. The appropriate course was to work out the claim in independent civil proceedings, where the petitioner could seek suitable relief before the vehicle was sold.

Conclusion: The writ relief was not granted and the petition was dismissed, with the petitioner left to pursue civil remedies.

Ratio Decidendi: A dispute turning on the nature of a hire-purchase transaction and title to property, requiring examination of surrounding facts and evidence, is not fit for determination in writ jurisdiction under Article 226.

---