Transfer of ownership of a motor vehicle is governed by the Sale of Goods Act, 1930 and the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, and is not solely determined by the entries in the registration certificate.

1. Defendant No.1 is in second appeal aggrieved against the judgment and decree passed by the Courts below, whereby the plaintiff was declared owner of half share of truck bearing registration No. HR 47-4738.

2. The plaintiff has filed a suit for declaration alleging that defendant No.1 has purchased the aforesaid truck in partnership with him, but the truck was registered as owned by defendant No.1 exclusively. The plaintiff relies upon an affidavit dated 10.9.1996 allegedly executed by defendant No.1, wherein the defendant has admitted the contribution of the plaintiff in the purchase of said vehicle to the extent of half share and that both parties shall be owner of half share each. Both the Courts have relied upon the said affidavit to return a finding that the plaintiff is owner to the extent of half share in the said truck.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant has argued that the truck is recorded to be in the ownership of the defendant alone as per the registration certificate, therefore, on the basis of affidavit dated 10.9.1996, the plaintiff cannot claim to be owner of the said truck to the extent of half share. It is also contended that sale and purchase of a motor vehicle cannot be regulated by way of such an affidavit produced by the plaintiff. Reliance is placed on the Division Bench of this Court in Vipin Kumar Sharma V/s. Jagwant Kaur and others, 2005 (3) PLR 454 : (AIR 2006 (NOC)327 ).

4. I do not find any merit in the arguments raised by the learned counsel for the appellant.

5. The sale of motor vehicle is governed by the provisions of the Sale of Goods Act, 1930 (for short "the Goods Act") and not by the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. In vasantha Viswanathan and others V/s. v. K. Elayalwar and others, (2001) 8 SCC 133 : (AIR 2001 SC 3367), Supreme Court has interpreted Sec.19 of the Goods Act. It was held that if there is a contract for said of specific or ascertained goods, the property in them is transferred to the buyer at such time as the parties to the contract intend if to be transferred. While considering Sec.31 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (for short "mv act, 1939"), it was held that it prescribes the procedure for entering the factum of transfer in the registration certificate which is an act posterior to the transfer but the transfer of the vehicle would be governed by the provisions of Sec.19 of the Goods Act, Similar is the judgment in Panna Lal V/s. Chand mal and others, AIR 1980 SC 871, when after considering section 31 of the MV Act, 1939, it was held that the statute casts an obligation on the transferee to report to the registering Authority concerned regarding the transfer of the vehicle along with a certificate of registration and then get the registration transferred in his name but if the purchaser has not chosen to move the Registering Authority, he cannot be heard to say that he is entitled for refund of the purchase money or claim damages. It was the duty of the plaintiff to have applied to the Registering Authority under section 31 of the MV act, 1939 and got the registration transferred in his name.

6. Apart from the aforesaid judgments of the Supreme Court, the question as to whether the registered owner alone can be deemed to be owner of the vehicle has come up for consideration in many Judgments under the MV Act, 1939 and under the Motor vehicles Act, 1988 (for short "mv Act" as well. The provisions of the two statutes are substantially same except that the definition of owner as it appears in Sec.2 (19) of the mv Act, 1939 is different with the definition of owner in section 2 (30) of the MV act. Though the definition of owner has been changed but the judgments enunciating the principle of transfer of moveable property has not undergone any change.

7. In Oriental Fire and General Insurance company Limited V/s. Vimal Roy, 1972 ACJ 314, a Division Bench of Delhi High Court held to the following effect:-

"mr. Dhanda contended with force that it is the provisions of the