Moola Singh vs Puran Singh

S.S. Dewan, J.

This revision petition is directed against the order dated July 15, 1985, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana whereby set aside the order dated February 7, 1985, passed by the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Ludhiana, entrusting the custody of a tractor to Moola Singh petitioner a registered owner of the vehicle.

The facts that have given rise to this petition are in a very narrow compass. Puran Singh respondent purchased the tractor in dispute from M/s. Rajan Enterprises, Khanna, on 23.1.1984. The tractor developed a defect in the gears and Puran Singh took it to the above said dealer for removing the defect. It is alleged that instead of removing the defect, the dealer sold the tractor to Moola Singh on 28.1.1984. Puran Singh lodged a complaint with the police on 30.1.1985. The police took the tractor in possession from Moola Singh. Both Moola Singh and Puran Singh made application for taking the tractor on Superdari and the learned Magistrate after hearing the Advocates appearing for the parties on both sides found that the petitioner herein being the registered owner of the vehicle was the proper person for its interim custody and that in view, he made an order dated February 7, 1985. Aggrieved by the said order Puran Singh approached the Additional Sessions Judge. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, however, being of the view that Puran Singh who claimed to have purchased the vehicle from the aforesaid dealers was the proper person to whom the custody of the vehicle had to be entrusted. Accordingly, the Additional Sessions Judge having reversed the order made by the Magistrate, Moola Singh petitioner has approached this court in revision.

In the instant case, it does not seem to be in dispute that the petitioner is a registered owner of the tractor in dispute. The registration certificate enjoined by the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act stands in his name. It is further the admitted position that the petitioner is holder of the insurance policy covering the vehicle in his own name. The case of Puran Singh respondent is that he had purchased the tractor in dispute from M/s. Rajan Enterprises, Khanna. The crucial issue, therefore, is whether on these accepted facts, the petitioner should be held prima facie, entitled to the possession of the vehicle. A reference in this connection may be made to the mandatory provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939. Chapter III therein provides for the registration of the motor vehicle and Sections 22 and 23 impose a mandatory duty on the owner of the motor vehicle to have the same registered by the Registering Authority in the State in which such owner has residence or place of business before vehicle can be allowed to be driven in any place. It is evident from these provisions that the certificate of registration is the primary if not concussive evidence that the holder thereof is the owner of the motor vehicle specified therein. Equally axiomatic it is that a presumption of being in possession flows from the factum of rightly ownership. Therefore, the holder of the certificate of registration is entitled to claim in his favour the strongest presumption that he is the rightful owner in physical possession of the motor vehicle. Unless there is a clearest and well high conclusive evidence to the contrary to rebut this presumption, the registered owner of a motor vehicle ought not to be denied his right to custody and possession of the same.

In the present case, the petitioner admittedly is the holder of the certificate of registration of the tractor. Equally so the certificate of insurance for the vehicle stands in his name. I am hence of the view that the petitioner is clearly entitled to the custody of the vehicle during the course of the inquiry for trial.

It is thus clear that the learned Additional Sessions Judge has committed an error in reversing the order passed by the Judicial Magistrate in exercise of proper judicial discretion entrusting the vehicle to the registered owner of the vehicle.

In the result and for the reasons stated above, the petition is entitled to succeed and it is accordingly allowed. The impugned order dated July 15, 1985, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana, is set aside and the order dated February 7, 1985, passed by the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Ludhiana is restored.