IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN THURSDAY, THE 17TH DECEMBER 2009 / 26TH AGRAHAYANA 1931 WP(C).No. 22336 of 2009(J) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- PRINCE P.RAJ, S/O.PRABHULACHANDRA RAJ, AGED 27 YEARS, RESIDING AT BHASURA VILASOM, KATTUPUTHUSSERY, NAVAIKULAM. BY ADV. MR.P.DEEPAK RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER (REGISTERING AUTHORITY) ATTINGAL. 2. THE DEPUTY TRANSPORT COMMISSIONER(SOUTH ZONE), THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. ADDL. R3 - SURYA, OM NIVA, PUTHENCHANDA, VARKALA P.O. - IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 12.8.09 IN I.ANO.9952/09 BY SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER MR. K.S.MUHAMMED HASHIM ADV. ,MR.N.NANDAKUMARA MENON, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR R3 MR.P.K.MANOJKUMAR FOR R3 SMT.SUSHYA RAJAN FOR R3 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 17/12/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 22336 of 2009(J) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1 - TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF THE CERTIFICATE OF REGISTRATION OF THE KL-16/810 EXT.P2 - TRUE COPY OF THE SALE AGREEMENT DATED 9/11/2004. EXT.P3 - TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGE IN THE CERTIFICATE OF REGISTRATION OF THE VEHI8CLE EVIDENCING CANCELLATION OF THE ENTRY RELATING TO HP AGREEMENT. EXT.P4 - TRUE COPIES OF THE FORM 29 NOTICE DTED 18.3.2006. EXT.P4(a) - TRUE COPIES OF THE FORM 30 NOTICE DATED 18.3.2006. EXT.P5 - TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE RTO, KOLLAM DATED 5.7.2007. EXT.P6 - TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 5.10.2007 IN WPC NO. 21332 OF 2007. EXT.P7 - TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 3.3.2009 IN WA NO. 2565 OF 2007. EXT.P8 - TRUE COPY OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 21/4/2009. EXT.P9 - TRUE COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM OF APPEAL IN APPEAL NO. 12/2009. EXT.P10 - TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OFR THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 6/7/2009. // TRUE COPY // PA TO JUDGE rhs S. SIRI JAGAN, J ................................................ W.P(C) No. 22336 of 2009 ................................................. Dated this the 17th day of December, 2009 J U D G M E N T The petitioner purchased a stage carriage from one Aneesh V. Kumar as per Ext.P2 sale agreement. After purchase of the same, the petitioner filed Form 29 and Form 30 notices dated 18.3.2006 produced as Exts.P4 and P4(a) before the 1st respondent for transfer of ownership of the vehicle. After Ext.P2 sale agreement but before the submission of Ext.P4 and P4(a), the registered owner of the vehicle, Aneesh v. Kumar died. Petitioner's grievance is that on the ground that the 3rd respondent, who is widow of the deceased registered owner of the vehicle opposes the transfer of ownership, the 1st respondent is not effecting the transfer of ownership. The petitioner therefore seeks the following reliefs: “(i) Issue a writ in the nature of Certiorari or such other writ, order or direction calling for the records leading to Exhibits P9 & P10 and quash the same. (ii) Issue a writ in the nature of Mandamus or such other writ, order or direction commanding the 1st respondent to act on Exhibits P4 & P4(a) and endorse the transfer of ownership in the certificate of registration of stage carriage KL-16/810 from the name of the registered owner to the name of the petitioner.” W.P(C) No. 22336 of 2009 -2- 2. The 3rd respondent has filed a counter affidavit disputing the sale itself. According to the 3rd respondent, the sale agreement is a concocted and fabricated document. Along with the affidavit dated 15.12.2009, the petitioner has produced a copy of the registration certificate of the vehicle as Ext.P11 which is alleged to contain the signature of the registered owner. According to the petitioner the said signature is exactly identical to that in Ext.P2 and Exts.P4 and P4(a). 3. I have heard the parties. 4. I do not think that it is necessary to consider the validity of the contentions of the parties regarding the genuineness of the documents. That is something which they have to agitate before the appropriate civil court in accordance law. I do not think that in the meanwhile the petitioner should be prejudiced because of the non-transfer of ownership of vehicle. I am constrained to take this view since prima facie the signature in Ext.P11 appears similar to those in Exts.P2, P4 and P4(a) and it would require expert evidence to disprove the same, which cannot be done in proceedings before the 1st respondent. W.P(C) No. 22336 of 2009 -3- In the above circumstances, I dispose of this writ petition with a direction to the 1st respondent to consider and pass orders on Ext.P4 and P4(a) submitted by the petitioner, if the same is otherwise in order and if the 1st respondent is satisfied that all other conditions for transfer of ownership are satisfied, he shall effect transfer of ownership provisionally, subject to any court orders in the matter. The 3rd respondent would be free to challenge the sale in appropriate proceedings before the Civil Court and if ultimately she succeeds in her effort, on production of a certified copy of the judgment, the 1st respondent shall reverse the ownership accordingly in the records of the 1st respondent and the registration certificate. sd/- S. SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE rhs // True copy // PA to Judge