( 1 ) THE appellant was the owner of truck bearing No. GTD 5177. He sold the said truck to Himatlal Jaysukhlal-original defendant No. 3 on 1-10-1975. On payment of price delivery of the truck was given to Himatlal on that day. A sale deed in that behalf was also executed. It was agreed by the parties that motor vehicle taxes on and from 1-10-1975 were to be paid by the purchaser. The applicant had also informed the registering authority about this transfer by its letter dated 3-10-1975 and had also sent a copy of the sale deed alongwith it. The appellant however received a notice in 1982 calling upon it to pay the motor vehicle tax and penalty for the period from 1-10-1975 to 31-12-1981. The appellant pointed out to the registering authority that it had already transferred the truck in 1975 but the registering authority did not accept this plea of the appellant on the ground that the appellant has not ceased to be a registered owner of the truck and therefore it has continued to remain liable to pay the tax. As the tax demanded by the registering authority was not paid by he appellant the registering authority tried to recover the said amount as arrears of land revenue under the Bombay Land Revenue Code. The appellant therefore filed Civil Suit No. 128 of 1983 in the Court of Civil Judge (S. D.) Ahmedabad (Rural ).

( 2 ) THE appellant in support of its case inter alga produced the intimation which it had given to the registering authority and also a copy of the sale deed. It also examined Vinodbhai a partner of the firm to prove that the sale had taken place on 1-10-1975 and that necessary intimation thereof was given to the registering authority. No evidence was led either by the registering authority or by the purchaser of the truck. The trial Court after considering the requirement of Sec. 31 of the Bombay Motor Vehicles Act as 3mended in 1978 held that the proper procedure was not adopted by the appellant-transferor and by the transferee-original defendant No. 3 and therefore the appellant cannot be said to have properly transferred its vehicle. He therefore held the appellant liable to pay the taxes demanded from it. The suit of the appellant was therefore dismissed.

( 3 ) AGGRIEVED by the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court the appellant has filed this appeal and contended that the trial Court committed an error in applying the amended Sec. 31 even though old Sec. 31 applied to the facts of the case. As stated earlier the vehicle in question was sold by the appellant on 1-10-1975. Therefore what was the obligation of the appellant at that time will have to be found out by referring to the relevant provision of law as it stood on that day. Admittedly Sec. 31 which has been applied by the trial Court came to be inserted in the Act in place of the old Sec. 31 in 1978. The procedure which is prescribed by the amended Sec. 31 is required to be followed by the transferor transferee and the concerned authority after the date on which that provision came into force. The appellant was not required to follow that procedure and therefore the finding recorded by the trial Court in this behalf is obviously erroneous.

( 4 ) SECTION 31 as it stood before its amendment in 1978 read as under:31 (1) Where the ownership of any motor vehicle registered under this Chapter is transferred: (a) the transferor shall within fourteen days of the transfer report the transfer to the registering authority within whose jurisdiction the transfer is affected and shall simultaneously send a copy of the said report to the transferee; (b) the transferee shall within thirty days of the transfer report the transfer to the registering authority within whose jurisdiction he resides and shall forward the certificate of registration to that registering authority together with the prescribed fee and a copy of the report received by him from the transferor in order that particulars of the transfer of ownership may be entered in the cert