KALAPNATH SINGH Vs. SHEO NATH RAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) KALAPNATH Singh, has filed this revision application against the judgment and order dated 18-1- 1977 passed by the Sessions Judge, Azamgarh.

(2.) BRIEFLY stated the facts giving rise to this revision application are that Sheonath Rai, opposite party, was the owner of motor vehicle No. UTD 4928. He had purchased it after taking loan from the Union Bank and the car was pledged with it. He was paying the loan by instalments to the Bank. He obtained possession over the vehicle and after obtaining its registration under the Motor Vehicles Act in his name started plying it. The present revisionist lodged a report under Section 379 IPC alleging that he had purchased the said vehicle from Sheonath Rai on 12-6 - 1975 for Rs. 22,330/-. He also started paying the remaining instalments to the Union Bank and as such, became owner of the vehicle but in the night between 26th/27th Oct. 1976, Sheonath Rai took away the vehicle by force. After necessary investigation the police submitted a charge sheet against Sheonath Rai. During the pendency of the case Kalapnath Singh moved an application under Section 451 of the Criminal Procedure Code (516-A of the old Code) for release of the vehicle in his favour. After considering the case of the parties and examining the evidence on the record, the learned magistrate came to the conclusion that prima facie Kalapnath Singh was entitled to the custody of the vehicle. Accordingly he released it in his favour. Sheonath Rai filed a revision application and the learned Sessions Judge held that even if Kalapnath Singh had paid any money to Sheonath Rai and had also paid instalments of the loan to the Bank he could not become owner of the vehicle because its registration was not transferred in his name under Section 31 of the Motor Vehicles Act. In his opinion, if the registration of the vehicle stood in the name of Sheonath Rai, the original owner, he would be deemed to be its owner. He, therefore, allowed the revision application and vacated the order passed by the learned Magistrate and directed that the vehicle be given in the custody of Sheonath Rai on his furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 10,000/- and two sureties for a like amount and on giving an undertaking that the vehicle shall be made available to the court whenever called upon to do so. It is against this order that Kalapnath Singh has filed this revision application.

(3.) ON the basis of the material on the record the learned lower revisional court came to the conclusion that there was prima facie material to establish that the vehicle in dispute was transferred by Sheonath Rai to Kalapnath Singh and that the latter had paid some money to the former and obtained possession over the vehicles yet the former continued to be the owner by virtue of Section 31 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, because the transferee had not got the registration done in his name.