The legal provisions related to transfer of ownership of a motor vehicle and their implications on liability in a road traffic accident were central to the court's decision.

JUDGMENT :

H.B. Prabhakara Sastry, J.

1. It is a plaintiff's appeal. The present appellant as a plaintiff in O.S.No.10423/2006 filed against the present respondent in the Court of the XXXI Additional City Civil Judge, Bangalore City (CCH-14) (hereinafter for brevity referred to as the "Trial Court") had sought for recovery of a sum of Rs. 1,04,500/- together with costs and interest at the rate of Rs. 12% per annum from the defendant.

2. The summary of the case of the plaintiff in the Trial Court was that, he was the registered owner of a Scooter bearing Registration No.MEN-8320 and had sold the said Scooter by delivering the possession of the said Scooter to the defendant on 02-04-1992, in which regard, the defendant had given him a delivery receipt acknowledging taking delivery of the Scooter. The plaintiff had also given Form No.29 and Form No.30 duly executed by him to enable the defendant to get the transfer of registration of the vehicle in his name. The Insurance certificate, tax card, registration certificate documents were all delivered to the defendant by the plaintiff at the time of delivering his Scooter. The said vehicle met with a road traffic accident near Vijayanagar, Bengaluru on 05-07-1994, wherein a pedestrian by name Smt. Rajamma, W/o. Mallaiah sustained injuries. She filed a claim petition before the learned XI Additional Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal at Bangaloru (SCCH-12) (hereinafter for brevity referred to as the 'MACT') in M.V.C.No.3204/1994 against the plaintiff and one Sri.V. Jayaram, arraigning them as the owner and rider of the offending vehicle, i.e. Scooter, respectively.

According to the plaintiff, an ex-parte judgment and award was passed in the claim petition by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal holding the respondents before it jointly and severally liable to pay to the claimant therein, a sum of Rs. 73,500/- with interest at Rs. 8% per annum. The claimant Smt. Rajamma filed an Execution Petition in Execution Case No.1131/2003 for recovery of the award amount. According to the plaintiff, it is only thereafter he came to know about the claim made against him and the award passed against him.

Challenging the said award, the plaintiff filed a Miscellaneous petition before the Small Causes Court on 12-05-2005 along with an application under Order XXI Rule 26 r/w. Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure,1908, for stay of the judgment and award passed in M.V.C.No.3204/1994. The said application came to be rejected. The plaintiff preferred a writ petition before this Court in W.P.No.23932/2005 which also came to be dismissed. Having no other alternative, the plaintiff settled the claim with the claimant for a sum of Rs. 80,000/- in Execution Petition and the said amount was paid by him to the claimant. It is thereafter the plaintiff got issued a legal notice upon the defendant calling upon him to make good the amount paid by him to the claimant in M.V.C.No.3204/1994, since the defendant was the purchaser of the said Scooter and owning it as on the date of accident. However, the defendant did not respond to the said notice. As such, the plaintiff was constrained to institute a suit against him for recovery of money.

3. In response to the summons served upon him, the defendant appeared through his counsel and filed his Written Statement, wherein he categorically denied that he had purchased the Scooter from the plaintiff and got issued to him Form No.29 and Form No.30 duly executed by the plaintiff. He also denied that he had issued a delivery receipt to the plaintiff. He denied his alleged liability under the suit.

4. Based on the pleadings of the parties, the Trial Court framed the following issues for its consideration:-

"[1] Whether the plaintiff proves that he was the registered owner of the Scooter bearing Registration No.MEN 8320?

[2] Whether the plaintiff further proves that on 2.4.1992 he had sold and delivered possession of the said Scooter to the defendant along with the documents and t