Back
2020 Supreme(Ker) 1087
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR, J.
Sanjay S.S., S/o.Sugathan – Appellant
Versus
The State Of Kerala – Respondent
WP(C).No.26219 of 2019(B), WP(C).No.25285 of 2019(I)
Decided on : 15-01-2020
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : SRI.VISHAK.K.JOHNSON, SRI.S.NITHIN (ANCHAL)
For the Respondent: SRI.S.CHANDRASEKHARAN NAIR, SRI.RAJU GEORGE (KARUVATTA), SRI.BIMAL K.NATH
Point of Law: Any document to suggest that an order for transfer of ownership of vehicle in question cannot be passed in favour of one of petitioners in accordance with provisions of Motor Vehicle.
Headnote:
Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 406, 420 - Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Punishment for criminal breach of trust - Cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property - Petitioners in both these Writ Petitions claim to be in possession of a Benz motor car bearing registration - It is not in dispute that original owner of said car was 4th respondent in W.P.(C) - It would appear that 4th respondent entered into an agreement with for transfer of vehicle and possession of vehicle was also given to said person – They have obtained possession of vehicle and also have supporting document to effect a transfer of ownership in their respective names before authorities under Motor Vehicles Act - Para 5.
Finding of the Court :
Court find that this is a case where there are rival claimants seeking transfer of ownership of vehicle bearing registration - While registered owner of vehicle in records before Motor Vehicle Department now, 4th respondent petitioners in both these Writ Petitions claim that they have obtained possession of vehicle and also have supporting document to effect a transfer of ownership in their respective names before authorities under Motor Vehicles Act - Since this Court will not be in a position to ascertain factum of possession of vehicle with either of petitioners, Court deem it appropriate to dispose these Writ Petitions with the following direction - Regional Transport Officer (RTO), 2nd respondent in W.P.(C), shall consider applications for transfer of ownership preferred by petitioners in both these Writ Petitions in light of documents produced by each of them and shall ascertain, who is an actual possession of vehicle in question.
Result: Writ Petitions disposed.
JUDGMENT :
As both these writ petitions involve a common issue they are taken up for consideration together and disposed by this common judgment.
2. The petitioners in both these Writ Petitions claim to be in possession of a Benz motor car bearing registration No.KL-01-BT-1111. It is not in dispute that the original owner of the said car was one A.Sulaiman, the 4th respondent in W.P.(C).No.26219 of 2019. It would appear that the 4th respondent entered into an agreement with one Sanjay for the transfer of the vehicle and possession of the vehicle was also given to the said person. The said person in turn entered into an agreement with one Faisal (the 6th respondent in W.P.(C).No.26219 of 2019) under cover of which, the said person obtained possession of the vehicle. Faisal in turn entered into an agreement with one Abdul Vahid (the 7th respondent in W.P.(C).No.26219 of 2019) consequent to which the possession of the vehicle stood transferred to the said person. The petitioner in W.P.(C).No.26219 of 2019 obtained the possession of the vehicle from the said Abdul Vahid pursuant to Ext.P2 sale agreement executed by the latter in favour of the petitioner. W.P(C).No.25285 of 2019 is preferred by Sri.Sanjay, who is the 5th respondent in W.P. (C).No.26219 of 2019. In both these Writ Petitions, the petitioners aver that they are in possession of the vehicle and that they have documents to prove that the original owner of the vehicle, Sri.Sulaiman has executed the necessary statutory forms required for effecting a transfer of ownership of the vehicle in accordance with the Motor Vehicle Act and Rules in their favour, and therefore, a direction ought to be issued to the Regional Transport Officer, Thiruvananthapuram to effect a transfer of the ownership of the vehicle concerned in one of their names.
3. Through a counter affidavit filed on behalf of Sri.Sulaiman, the 4th respondent in W.P.(C).No.26219 of 2019, it is stated that Sri.Sanjay, the 5th respondent had committed a breach of trust and cheated the 4th respondent by playing a fraud on him in that, he had obtained the statutory forms in blank duly signed by the said respondent, and thereafter, decamped with the vehicle without paying any amount towards the price of the vehicle, without the consent of the said respondent. The said respondent is stated to have registered a crime as Crime No.1841 of 2019 before the Museum Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram under Section 406 and 420 of IPC. The said FIR is produced along with the counter affidavit as Ext.R4(a). The investigation in the said crime is stated to be underway. In the meanwhile, taking note of the filing of these Writ Petitions before this Court, the said respondent thought it fit to approach this Court by filing a counter affidavit in these Writ Petitions, so as to bring to the notice of this Court the fact that there was no willful transfer of the vehicle from him to the said Sanjay, who in turn appears to have transferred possession of the vehicle to various persons culminating with the petitioner in W.P.(C).No.26219 of 2019. It is the fervent plea of the learned counsel for the 4th respondent that the ownership of the vehicle should not be transferred in favour of either the petitioner in W.P(C).No.25285 of 2019 or W.P.(C).No.26219 of 2019 pending completion of the investigation in the crime referred above, registered with the Museum Police Station.
4. I have heard Sri.J.R.Prem Navaz, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in W.P.(C).No.26219 of 2019, Sri.S.Chandrasekharan Nair, the learned counsel for Sri.A.Sulaiman who is the respondent in both these Writ Petitions, Sri.Lal K.Joseph, the learned Standing Counsel for the ICICI Bank and the learned Government Pleader appearing for the official respondents of the State in both the Writ Petitions.
5. On a consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case as also the submissions made across the bar, I find that this is a case where there are rival claimants seek
