Back
1991 Supreme(Gau) 59
GAUHATI HIGH COURT
S.N.Phukan, J.
Gopiram -Appellant
Versus
Basudeo Agarwal and Another -Respondent
Criminal Revision No. 104 of 1991
Decided On : 03-04-1991
J.M.Choudhary, G.N.Sahewalla, A.K.Goswami, A.Deka, N.Choudhary, Z.Kamar, K.K.Mahanta
The registration certificate is not conclusive evidence of ownership of a vehicle and the transfer of ownership of a vehicle is governed by the Sale of Goods Act.
Headnote:
MOTOR VEHICLES ACT - SECTION 48 - CUSTODY OF SEIZED VEHICLE - OWNERSHIP DISPUTE - TRANSFER OF TITLE - SALE OF GOODS ACT - REGISTRATION CERTIFICATE NOT CONCLUSIVE EVIDENCE OF OWNERSHIP.
Fact of the Case:
Dispute over the ownership of a seized vehicle. The registered owner claimed the vehicle, while the petitioner, who purchased the vehicle from a third party, also claimed ownership. The trial court granted custody of the vehicle to the registered owner.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the registration certificate is not conclusive evidence of ownership and that the transfer of ownership of a vehicle is governed by the Sale of Goods Act. The court also held that the trial court should have considered the prima facie question of title, keeping in view the provisions of the Sale of Goods Act and the peculiar facts of the case.
Issues: 1. Whether the registration certificate is conclusive evidence of ownership of a vehicle? 2. Whether the transfer of ownership of a vehicle is governed by the Sale of Goods Act or the Motor Vehicles Act? 3. Whether the trial court erred in granting custody of the vehicle to the registered owner without considering the prima facie question of title?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The registration certificate is not conclusive evidence of ownership of a vehicle. 2. The transfer of ownership of a vehicle is governed by the Sale of Goods Act. 3. The trial court erred in granting custody of the vehicle to the registered owner without considering the prima facie question of title.
Final Decision: The court set aside the trial court's order and directed the trial court to decide the matter on the basis of the law stated above.
Key Points: - The registration certificate is not conclusive evidence of ownership of a vehicle; transfer of ownership is governed by the Sale of Goods Act. (!) - The Motor Vehicles Act and its section 48 relate to custody of seized vehicles but do not determine title; ownership disputes require consideration of Sale of Goods Act principles. (!) (!) - The trial court should have considered the prima facie question of title in light of the Sale of Goods Act and the peculiar facts of the case, rather than relying solely on registration in the name of the registered owner. (!) (!) (!) - Prior rulings and case law cited support that transfer of ownership of a motor vehicle is governed by the Sale of Goods Act, not the Motor Vehicles Act, and that registration is not a document of title. (!) (!) (!) - The court set aside the trial court’s order and directed re-evaluation of custody based on the Sale of Goods Act and title considerations, with guidance to decide within a month. (!)
What is the status of the registration certificate as evidence of ownership for a motor vehicle?
What is the applicable law governing transfer of ownership of a motor vehicle: Sale of Goods Act or Motor Vehicles Act?
What should the trial court consider when deciding custody of a seized vehicle where ownership is disputed?
2. The short facts as disclosed in the FIR and the impugned order are stated below ;
Nanakchand Agarwal and Basudeo Agarwal were the owners of two trucks bearing registration No. AMA 7594 and AM\ 6231 and they agreed to sale the same to Rakesh Goyal at a sum of Rs. 30.000/-each. Rakesh Goyal paid Rs. 60,000/- for both the trucks and agreed to pay the balance within 3/4 months and the trucks were also handed over to him. Rakesh Goyal who has been shown as an accused in the present case, it is alleged that, did not pay the balance amount and on enquiry the informant came to know that the accused Rakesh Goyal registered the vehicle No. AMA 6231, which is the subject matter of the present dispute, in his name by forging some documents and the said registration was done in the State of Nagaland. The registration number of the vehicle was changed to NLM 8551 and later on Rakesh Goyal sold the vehicle to the present petitioner Gopiram who registered the vehicle in his own name at Delhi being registration No. DL-1G 1807. The informant has alleged that accused Rakesh Goyal without being owner of the vehicle sold it to the present petitioner Gopiram by forging the documents. During investigation, police seized the vehicle from the present petitioner at Delhi and it has been brought to Guwahati. Before the learned trial Court both Basudeo Agarwal and the present petitioner Gopiram have claimed for the zimma of the said vehicle on the basis of registration in their name. According to Gopiram he purchased the vehicle on 27. 8. 90 from Rakesh Goyal for valuable consideration as he found that Rakesh Goyal was the registered owner and thereafter got it transferred to his name.
3. This is the second times, the matter has come before this Court. In Criminal Revision No. 63/90 this Court by order dated 11. 2. 91 directed the learned trial Court to dispose of the petition for zimma of the vehicle after giving opportunities to the parties. In deciding this matter the learned Court was directed to decide who was the best person entitled to possess the seized vehicle and if necessary to decide the ownership of the seized vehicle.
4. I have heard Mr. Sahewalla, learned counsel for the present petitioner and Mr. J. M. Choudhury for the opposite party i. e. Basudeo Agarwalla.
5. It may be stated that Rakesh Goyal also filed a petition before this Court for allowing him to intervene in the matter and his counsel Mr. K. K. Mahanta was also heard.
6. From the impugned order I find that the learned Court was of the opinion that the transfer of the vehicle and recording of name in the Registration Certificate of Rakesh Goyal was made in a suspicious condition and without obtaining any no-objection certificate from the District Transport Officer, Guwahati as required under section 48 of the Motor Vehicles Act and accordingly held that the petitioner also did not acquire valid title though he was a purchaser for valuable consideration from a registered owner. The main consideration for allowing the vehicle in the zimma of Basudeo Agarwal is that he was the registered owner of the vehicle.
7. Various points have been judge before this Court regarding the factual aspects of the matter and in my opinion it is not necessity to consider these points in view of the fact that I propose to send back the entire matter to the learned Court below.
8. There cannot be any dispute that normally registered owner is entitled to get custody of the vehicle. This principle of law is applicable in cases such as alleged theft etc. But if the title is
