IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN FRIDAY, THE 9TH APRIL 2010 / 19TH CHAITHRA 1932 WP(C).No. 12831 of 2010(D) ----------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------- P.BHAGYALAKSHMY, W/O.LATE T.M.RAMANKUTTY, THEVAR HOUSE, POST PANANGATTIRI, PALAKKAD. BY ADV. SRI.I.DINESH MENON RESPONDENT(S): --------------------------- THE SECRETARY, REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, PALAKKAD. BY SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. K.C. SANTHOSH KUMAR THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09/04/2010 ALONG WITH WPC.NO.12793 OF 2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss C.R. K.SURENDRA MOHAN, J. -------------------------------------------------- W.P.(C) Nos.12831 & 12793 of 2010 -------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 9th day of April, 2010 JUDGMENT The petitioner's late husband Sri.T.M.Ramankutty was the owner of two stage carriage vehicles, one bearing Reg.No.KL-9/H 9440 conducting services on the route Malayadivaram-S.K.Puram and the other bearing Reg.No.KL-9/K 1015 conducting services on the route Elavancherry-Palakkad. The permit holder expired on 6.12.2009. According to the petitioner, intimation regarding the death of her husband was given on 14.1.2010, within 30 days of death of the permit holder. Subsequently on 3.3.2010, the petitioner herself intimated the Secretary, Regional Transport Authority that she had succeeded to the possession of the vehicles. 2. Thereafter the petitioner has submitted requests for transfer of the vehicles to her name producing all the necessary documents as required by Rule-56 of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules. Her complaint is that the respondent has not entertained the requests for transfer wpc Nos.12831 & 12793/2010 2 on the ground that Legal Heirship Certificate has not been produced by the petitioner along with her requests for transfer. 3. According to the petitioner, though she has applied for the issue of a Legal Heirship Certificate, the same has not yet been obtained by her. According to her, Rule 56 does not contemplate the production of a Legal Heirship Certificate as a requirement for the transfer of a vehicle or a permit. It is contended that her vehicles have valid permits, which are due to expire only on 30.7.2011 and 3.2.2010 respectively. Since the respondent has not issued even an authorisation or temporary permits, in view of the pendency of the transfer applications, the petitioner is compelled to keep her vehicles idle though she has valid permits also. Therefore, she seeks appropriate directions in the matter. 4. I have heard the counsel for the petitioner Sri.I.Dinesh Menon as well as Mr.K.C.Santhosh Kumar, the learned Senior Government Pleader. 5. Though Rule 56 of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules does not specifically stipulate the production of a wpc Nos.12831 & 12793/2010 3 Legal Heirship Certificate in support of an application for transfer of ownership of a vehicle consequent upon the death of the owner and permit holder, a reading of the provision makes it sufficiently clear that the transfer of a vehicle cannot be ordered without proper proof of succession to the properties of the deceased. The motor vehicle being a very valuable item of movable property, any decision permitting transfer of ownership of the same can be taken only with proper application of mind. 6. Rule 56 of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules reads as follows: 56. Transfer of ownership on death of owner of the vehicle:-- 1) Where the owner of a motor vehicle dies, the person succeeding to the possession of the vehicle may for a period of three months, use the vehicle as if it has been transferred to him where such person has, within thirty days of the death of the owner informs the registering authority the occurrence of the death of the owner and of his own intention to use the vehicle. 2) The person referred to in sub rule (1) shall apply in Form 31 within the period of three months to the said registering authority for the transfer of ownership of the vehicle in his name, accompanied by -- a) the appropriate fee as specified in wpc Nos.12831 & 12793/2010 4 Rule 81; b) death certificate in relation to the registered owner; c) the certificate of registration; and d) the certificate of insurance. A reading of Sub Rule 1 of Rule 56 makes it abundantly clear that the right to use the vehicle of a deceased person conferred on the person “succeeding to the possession of the vehicle”. The words clearly indicate that the right to use the vehicle for a period of three months, as if it had been transferred to him, has been conferred on a person who satisfies the condition stipulated therein, namely, that he has succeeded to the possession of the vehicle”. He has to satisfy the further condition of having informed the registering authority within thirty days of the death of the owner of two facts, the first being the factum of the death of the owner and the second being his intention to use the vehicle. As per Sub rule 2 of Rule 56, it is the person who is referred to in Sub Rule 1 who shall apply in Form 31 within the period of three months to the said registering authority for the transfer of ownership of the vehicle to his wpc Nos.12831 & 12793/2010 5 name. Therefore, the person seeking such transfer would have to satisfy the authority by producing necessary documents that he has 'succeeded' to the possession of the vehicle. Since the expression used is 'possession', the person need not in all cases be the owner of the vehicle. A co-owner or a partner who succeeds to the possession of the vehicle can also move under sub rule (1), though, transfer of ownership of the vehicle can be granted only to a person who has succeeded to the ownership of the vehicle also. He would further have to satisfy the authority that he has succeeded to the “possession” of the vehicle. The possession contemplated is legal possession and therefore, a person can be said to have succeeded to the possession of the vehicle only if he shows that he has done so through one of the modes recognized by law. Such succession can be by survivorship, testamentary disposition, transfer or by the operation of law. Therefore, it is implicit in the rule itself that the person seeking such transfer would have to satisfy the authority that he had legally succeeded to the possession of the vehicle by producing necessary documents to support his claim. Or wpc Nos.12831 & 12793/2010 6 in other words, in order to satisfy the registering authority that he is a person entitled to transfer of the vehicle, he would have to satisfy the conditions stipulated by Sub Rule-1 initially and thereafter, he would also have to produce the documents stipulated in Sub Rule 2. The contention of the petitioner that the registering authority cannot insist on the production of the Legal Heirship Certificate as a condition for transfer of ownership of the vehicle cannot therefore be accepted. 4. Since the Rule does not stipulate the production of any particular document to prove the claim of the applicant, it is sufficient that he produces an acceptable document to prove his entitlement for such transfer. The document may be the Legal Heirship Certificate, a Relationship Certificate issued by the Village Officer or a Succession Certificate, a will or a partnership deed or some other document that would show that he had succeeded to the possession of the vehicle. If there are more legal heirs to the deceased than one, or more persons who are equally entitled to such transfer, the consent of the others would also be necessary. Since the wpc Nos.12831 & 12793/2010 7 proceedings for transferring the ownership of a vehicle involves the transfer of a movable property of substantial value, the power has to be exercised by the authority with proper application of mind, after satisfying itself of the authenticity of the documents produced. The said decision is a quasi judicial one. Therefore, the contention of the petitioner that the registering authority cannot insist on the production of any other document that is not stipulated under Sub Rule-2 of Rule 56 cannot be accepted. I am supported in this view by an unreported decision of this Court dated 26.11.1993 in O.P.No.10465 of 1993. In the said case also, the question involved was whether the insistence on production of a Legal Heirship Certificate as a condition for transfer of a vehicle to the name of a daughter, was sustainable. After having considered the scope of the Rule as well as the other decisions on the point, P.K.Balasubramanyan J. (as he then was) has concluded the issue in the following words: “In the light of these decisions it appears to me that the insistence on the production of legal heir certificate by the first respondent for considering the application for clearance certificate is not justified. It appears that the petitioner has not produced the original of wpc Nos.12831 & 12793/2010 8 Ext.P3 before the first respondent while seeking the issuance of the clearance certificate. Under those circumstances it appears to me that the proper course to follow is to direct the first respondent to issue the clearance certificate and to effect the transfer to ownership in favour of the petitioner on the petitioner producing before the first respondent a certificate from the Village Officer or the original of Ext.P3 marked here showing that she is the only heir of her deceased father or a certificate to the same effect from the concerned Tahsildar to substantiate the fact that she is the only heir of her father”. I am in respectful agreement with the above dictum. Therefore, it has to be held that, insistence on the production of one particular document alone, the Legal Heirship Certificate in the present case is also without justification. However, the requirement of producing some certificate or other document to prove the entitlement of the applicant for transfer of the vehicle to his or her name is absolutely necessary. 7. Therefore, the insistence of the respondent on the production of a document showing the entitlement of the petitioner for transfer of the vehicle to her name cannot be found fault with. Any such transfer can be effected only on the applicant producing a proper document showing wpc Nos.12831 & 12793/2010 9 her entitlement for such transfer of permit or transfer of ownership. 8. For the foregoing reasons, these Writ Petitions are disposed of with the following directions: 1) The respondent is directed to consider the applications for transfer of permits submitted by the petitioner with respect to vehicle bearing Reg.No.KL-9/H 9440 covered by regular permit on the route Malayadivaram-Sreekrishnapuram and vehicle bearing Reg.No.KL-9/K 1015 conducting services on the route, Elavancherry-Palakkad, permitting her to produce proper documents in proof of her entitlement to claim such transfer exclusively to her name and to pass appropriate orders thereon in accordance with law, expeditiously. 2) The respondent shall consider the applications for temporary permits submitted by the petitioner to operate on the route Malayadivaram-Sreekrishnapuram with stage carriage vehicle No. KL-9/H 9440 and to operate on the route Elevancherry-Palakkad with stage carriage vehicle bearing Reg.No.KL-9/K 1015 till the disposal of her applications for transfer of permits, on wpc Nos.12831 & 12793/2010 10 receipt of the documents referred to above in accordance with law and shall pass appropriate orders thereon, as expeditiously as possible and at any rate within a period of 10 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment . In the above circumstances, there will be no order as to costs. K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JUDGE css/