2009 (10) TMI 949 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Ownership of the truck based on registration and affidavit.
2. Applicability of the Sale of Goods Act, 1930 vs. Transfer of Property Act, 1882.
3. Legal implications of non-registration of transfer under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 and 1988.
4. Validity of transfer of ownership without registration.

Summary:

1. Ownership of the truck based on registration and affidavit:
The plaintiff filed a suit for declaration claiming half ownership of a truck (registration No. HR 47-4738) based on an affidavit dated 10.9.1996 executed by defendant No.1, acknowledging the plaintiff's contribution to the purchase. Both lower courts declared the plaintiff as half-owner. The appellant argued that the truck's registration certificate listed defendant No.1 as the sole owner, and ownership cannot be claimed based on an affidavit.

2. Applicability of the Sale of Goods Act, 1930 vs. Transfer of Property Act, 1882:
The court held that the sale of motor vehicles is governed by the Sale of Goods Act, 1930 (the Goods Act) and not by the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. Citing Supreme Court judgments, it was emphasized that property in specific or ascertained goods transfers to the buyer when intended by the parties, as per Section 19 of the Goods Act.

3. Legal implications of non-registration of transfer under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 and 1988:
The court discussed various judgments, including those from the Supreme Court and High Courts, establishing that the transfer of ownership of a motor vehicle is not contingent upon registration. Non-compliance with registration requirements under Section 31 of the MV Act, 1939, or Section 50 of the MV Act, 1988, may result in penalties but does not affect the validity of the transfer of ownership.

4. Validity of transfer of ownership without registration:
The court reiterated that the registration certificate is not a document of title but an important piece of evidence. Ownership of a vehicle can be transferred by payment and delivery, and failure to update the registration does not invalidate the transfer. The court found no merit in the appellant's arguments and upheld the lower courts' judgment, confirming the plaintiff's half ownership of the truck.

Conclusion:
The appeal was dismissed, affirming the plaintiff's ownership of half the truck based on the affidavit and contributions to the purchase, despite the registration certificate listing defendant No.1 as the sole owner. The court emphasized that the transfer of ownership of movable property is not dependent on registration entries.