VISHNUBHAI CHUNILAL AMIN v. PREMJITSINGH RESHAMSINGH OJALA

(cid:9)Mr. Pandya has submitted that in respect of disposal of the Muddamal motor vehicle, reference should be head to the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, and the RTO record should be considered to be the proof of the ownership. Accordingly, the petitioner, whose name has been entered into the RTO records should be considered to be the owner of the truck and the rightful claimant for possession pending trial. Besides, the accused no. 2 had never been the owner of the truck, nor had he any interest in the same. He, therefore, could not have transferred the said truck to the complainant or any other person. Through the transfer made by the said accused no.2, the complainant can not claim right of ownership or any other right over the said truck. In support of his arguments, Mr. Pandya has relied upon the judgments of this court in the matter of NANDIRAM NANDUMAL PARUMAL VS STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS ( 1966 {7} GLR 366 ); STATE OF GUJARAT VS NARESHBHAI @ NARANBHAI JIVANJIBHAI HARIJAN ( 1988 {2} 925 ). He has also relied upon the judgment of Mysore High Court in the matter of TC GOPALAN NAIR VS P.KELU ( 1974, CRLJ, 210), and judgment of Karnataka High Court in the matter of U.KARIYAPPA VS SREEKANTAIAH ( 1980 CRLJ 422). (cid:9)Upon perusal of the record, I find that the petitioner has relied upon RTO entry (page 15 of the paper-book). The said entry evidences the transfer of the Muddamal truck from Lakshmanji Thakor, the accused no. 1, to the present petitioner on 25th September,

1991. However, the said entry has been made on 26th February, 1993. In respect of other papers, such as Insurance receipt, Motor Vehicle Tax Book etc. The petitioner has produced the certificate issued by the Police Sub Inspector, Dehgam Police Station (page-33 of the paper-book). The said certificate has been issued on 30th July, 1993, which states that the RTO Book, Tax Book, Fitness Tax, Insurance policy etc. in respect of truck bearing No. GRR 3246 had been lost by Lakshmanji Thakor and the loss had been recorded in the Police Station on 3rd January, 1993. As against that, the complainant has produced (as observed by the court below) the copies of the payment receipt, agreement, Insurance papers, transport permission, etc. Considering these documents, the learned Judge has observed that the entries made in the RTO record after the date of offence is irrelevant for the purpose of deciding the question of disposal of the Muddamal under section 451 CRPC. (cid:9)I do agree that while disposing of the Muddamal truck, the entries made in the RTO record should be considered as far as the ownership of the ownership of the vehicle is concerned. Similarly, no person can transfer the title in the property better than the one he has. However, in the present case, RTO entry relied upon by the petitioner is that of 23rd February, 1993 i.e. the date subsequent to the date of offence. No evidence has been produced by the petitioner to vouch-safe his ownership prior to the date of offence. As against that, the complainant has produced enough evidence to vouch-safe the transfer made to him on 1st December,