M SHEIK HYDIR Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE plaintiff's suit for declaration that he is not liable to pay Motor Vehicle Tax which is demanded by the Regional Transport Officer, Dharmapuri second defendant, and for injunction restraining the three defendants from collecting tax, has been dismissed. Hence the appeal by the plaintiff.

(2.) ONE Natesan was having a road permit to run a bus service from Hosur to Anchetty and on this permit he was plying the bus MDS 5974. The case of the plaintiff is that the bus met with an accident on 10.1.1975 and was badly damaged, and it could not be put on road even by repairing. The Motor Vehicles Inspector on inspection found the vehicle unfit to be put on the road. Natesan had no other vehicle to put on the road under that permit. Since the plaintiff had facility to purchase a bus to run, Natesan and the plaintiff made a joint application for transfer of the said permit in the name of the plaintiff. An order was passed transferring that permit to the plaintiff. Sometime later Natesan purchased a bus MDF 4704 and got it registered in his name. Natesan then transferred the registration of that vehicle to the plaintiff and the plaintiff became the owner of that vehicle from 16.8.1975. The accident of the vehicle MDS 5974 happened on 10.1.1975 and the quarterly tax till 31.3.1975 was not paid. If any tax was to be paid it must be only by the then owner of the vehicle viz., Natesan. The plaintiff was never the owner of the vehicle nor he was in possession or control of it. Therefore he is in no way liable to pay tax for that vehicle. But the second defendant is demanding tax for the said quarter from the plaintiff and is trying to collect it by coercive steps. Therefore the suit.

(3.) VARIOUS issues were framed by the trial court, and on the main issues it held that the plaintiff was not the owner of the vehicle MDS 5974 but the plaintiff has, along with Natesan, agreed and undertaken to pay the arrears of tax demanded, and only upon that undertaking the permit was transferred to him and this being the case the plaintiff is liable to pay the tax. The trial court further held that the suit is not barred by the principle of res judicata. Ultimately the trial court dismissed the suit.