IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARUN-UL-RASHID TUESDAY, THE 14TH JULY 2009 / 23RD ASHADHA 1931 RSA.No. 142 of 2007() --------------------- AS.61/2005 of DISTRICT COURT, KALPETTA OS.41/2001 of MUNSIFF-MAGISTRATE'S COURT, SULTHANBATHERY .................... APPELLANT/APPELLANT/DEFENDANT ------------------------------------------------- K.SUBAIR, S/O. MUHAMMED, KARUTHEDATH HOUSE, PADMAPRABHA ROAD, KALPETTA P.O., KALPETTA AMSOM, VYTHIRI TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.T.G.RAJENDRAN RESPONDENTS/ RESPONDENTS/PLAINTIFF/DEFENDANTS 2 & 3: ----------------------------------------------------- 1. V.SASIDHARAN, S/O. GOPALAN NAIR, RAMA MANDIRAM, AMBALAVAYAL P.O., WAYANAD DISTRICT. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, WAYANAD. 3. REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, REP. BY REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER, WAYANAD, KALPETTA NORTH. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI L.G.SURESH BABU FOR R.2 & 3 THIS REGULAR SECOND APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14/07/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: HARUN-UL-RASHID,J. --------------------------- R.S.A.NO.142 OF 2007 --------------------------- DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF JULY, 2009 JUDGMENT Defendant in O.S.No.41/2001 on the file of the Munsiff-Magistrate's Court, Sulthanbathery is the appellant. This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree in A.S.No.61/2005 on the file of the District Court, Kalpetta. The suit was for declaration and injunction. The trial court decreed the suit as prayed for, which was confirmed in appeal. Hence, this second appeal. 2. The declaration sought for is that the lst defendant is the owner of the vehicle bearing Regn.No. KLW 774 and that the motor vehicle tax arrears, if any, fallen due on the said vehicle after 29/8/1988 has to be paid by the lst defendant. The plaintiff sought for a decree directing the 2nd and 3rd defendants to collect the motor vehicle tax arrears if any fallen due after 29/8/1988 from the property of the said vehicle and from the lst -2- R.S.A.No.142/07 defendant and directing the 3rd respondent to make necessary entries in the registers in his office showing the transfer of ownership of the vehicle to the lst defendant. The trial court considered the issues in the light of the evidence adduced by both sides. PW-1 and DW-1 were examined and Exts.A1 to A14 and B1 were marked. 2. Admittedly, the plaintiff was the registered owner of a lorry bearing Regn. No.KLW 774. According to him, he sold the said vehicle to the lst defendant as per Ext.A1agreement dated 29/8/1988. The lst defendant denied the transaction and further contended that he never purchased the said lorry and executed Ext.A1 agreement. The trial court, after considering the issues regarding the execution of Ext.A1 agreement, held based on evidence that the plaintiff and the lst defendant had executed Ext.A1 agreement as contended by the plaintiff. The trial court also considered the question of liability on the vehicle. It is the plaintiff's case that from the date of Ext.A1 the defendant has -3- R.S.A.No.142/07 become the owner of the vehicle and hence he alone is liable to pay all the outgoings and charges including motor vehicle tax after 29/8/1988. The trial court considered this question on the basis of the respective contentions and held rightly that the lst defendant, who became the owner of the vehicle as per Ext.A1 agreement, is liable to pay the amount demanded as per Ext.A6 and that the plaintiff is not liable to pay the amount. It is made clear by the trial court that there is change of ownership and the change of ownership has to be effected in the R.C. book and that the plaintiff is not liable to pay any motor vehicle tax arrears if any due on the said vehicle after 29/8/1988. The trial court decreed the suit directing the lst defendant to pay to the plaintiff an amount of Rs.2,998/- together with 18% interest, which is the amount admittedly paid by the plaintiff and also directing defendants 2 and 3 to collect motor vehicle tax arrears if any fallen due on the vehicle from the property of the said vehicle and from the lst defendant. All the reliefs sought for were -4- R.S.A.No.142/07 granted by the trial court. The issues were re-agitated before the Appellate Court in A.S.No.61/05. The Appellate Court also considered all the questions in detail and agreed with the findings arrived at by the trial court. The Appellate Court held that there is overwhelming evidence to find that the appellant is the transferee of the vehicle and he is bound to pay the motor vehicle tax and that he cannot plead that he is not liable for any act or anything pertaining to the vehicle after 29/8/1988. Finding that the appeal is devoid of any merit, the Appellate Court dismissed the appeal with costs. 3. I have examined the respective contentions of the parties, reasoning and the observations of the courts below. The learned counsel for the appellant urged the contentions raised in the suit which are considered in detail by both the courts below on facts and evidence and arrived at conclusions, which I have referred to above. The findings entered by the courts below are purely based on the facts, evidence and probabilities. I do not -5- R.S.A.No.142/07 find any reason to take a different view from the view taken by both the courts below in the given circumstances. The appellant has not made out any ground to invoke this Court's jurisdiction under Section 100 of the C.P.C. No question of law much less any substantial question of law arises for consideration in this appeal. In the result, the appeal fails and accordingly it is dismissed in limine. HARUN-UL-RASHID, Judge. kcv.