IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.BHAVADASAN WEDNESDAY, THE 2ND FEBRUARY 2011 / 13TH MAGHA 1932 SA.No. 601 of 2000(E) --------------------- ( AS.44/1993 of ADDL.SUB COURT, IRINJALAKUDA OS.73/1990 of PRL. MUNSIFF COURT, IRINJALAKUDA) .................... APPELLANT/APPELLANT/PLAINTIFF: ----------------------------------------------------- JOHN, AGED 64, S/O.MALIYAKKAL KOONAN PAILEE, PUTHENCHIRA VILLAGE, MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK. BY ADVS. SRI.T.N.MANOJ SRI.DINESH R.SHENOY RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS/DEFENDANTS: ------------------------------------------------------------------ 1. RAJAN, AGED 39, S/O.PANAMBILLY MANI, PANAMBILLY HOUSE, PUTHENCHIRA VILLAGE, MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, AYYANTHOLE, THRISSUR. 3. THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER, OFFICE OF THE R.T.O., IRINJALAKUDA. R1 BY ADV. SRI.M.C.GOPI THIS SECOND APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 2.2.2011 , THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: VK P.BHAVADASAN, J. ---------------------------- S.A.No. 601 of 2000 --------------------------------- Dated this the 2nd day of February, 2011 JUDGMENT The short question that arises for consideration in this case is whether the plaintiff was liable to pay vehicle tax, since he had already transferred the ownership and possession of his vehicle to a third party. The short facts necessary for the disposal are as follows: 2. The plaintiff sold and delivered his mini lorry bearing Reg.No.G.V.K.R.R.2645 to the first defendant on 09.06.1988 as per the agreement executed by the plaintiff and the first defendant, which is marked as Ext.A1. According to him that fact was duly intimated to the joint RTO, Irinjalakuda, as per Ext.A2 letter dated 15.11.1988. Ever since the transfer of the vehicle as per Ext.A1, plaintiff had no control over the vehicle's or its possession. While so, the appellant was served with a notice dated 15.03.1989 by the third respondent directing the appellant to pay the dues of tax in respect of the vehicle from 01.10.1988. That notice is followed by another notice dated 17.03.1989 directing to surrender the vehicle before the third respondent. Hence the suit. 3. First defendant remained exparte. The contesting defendant in the suit pointed out that the suit itself is not maintainable and that S.A.No. 601 of 2000 2 there were no proper application intimating transfer of the vehicle. Neither the documents mentioned in the plaint nor the fee required for the transfer of the ownership of the vehicle were filed or remitted in the office of the third defendant. It is pointed out that there is alternate remedy available to the plaintiff, so he cannot invoke the jurisdiction of this court. On the basis of these contentions, they prayed for a dismissal of the suit. 4. Based on the above pleadings, necessary issues were raised by the trial court. The evidence consists of the testimony of PW1 and documents marked as Exts. A1 to A8 from the side of the plaintiff. DW1 was examined and Ext.B1 marked from the side of the defendants. The trial court on an elaborate consideration of the evidence came to a conclusion that the plaintiff is not entitled to any reliefs in the suit and accordingly dismissed the suit. 5. The plaintiff carried the matter in appeal as A.S.No.44/1993. The appellate court dismissed the appeal observing that the trial court has correctly appreciated the legal and factual evidence on record and has entered into correct findings. It was held that the trial court judgment does not require any interference or variation as contended by the appellant and therefore confirmed the trial court decree. S.A.No. 601 of 2000 3 6. Notice has been issued on the following substantial questions of law: a. Whether under Section 2(19) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 the ownership of a motor vehicle does not rests mainly on the strength of possession and actual control of the vehicle and not on the strength of the mere registration. b. Whether the liability to pay tax after the transfer of ownership and possession of the vehicle, as envisaged under Section 9 of the Motor Vehicles Taxation act, 1976 does not rest on the person who is in possession and control of the vehicle after the transfer. c. Is not the person in possession and control of the vehicles liable to pay the tax under section 3(3) Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1976. d. Whether non-compliance of any of the conditions stipulated under section 50 of the M.V.Act (Section 3 D of the old act) makes the transfer of the Motor Vehicles Invalid ? e. Whether a transfer of a motor vehicle would be invalid for the mere reason of non-compliance with the form specified to intimate the transfer to the R.T.O., under Rule 100 of the K.M.V.Rules ? f. Whether the title to a motor vehicle does not pass immediately on completion of the sale on contemplated under the sale of goods Act ? 7. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that both the courts below have misdirected themselves on the facts and in law. It is S.A.No. 601 of 2000 4 pointed out that even assuming that Ext.A2 intimation was not in the required form, statutory notices had been issued. The vehicle had been sold to first defendant. If that be so, going by the provisions of the Kerala Motor Vehicles Act, the first defendant was liable to pay the tax. In support of his contention that it is the first defendant who is liable to pay the tax, the learned counsel relied on the decision reported in (2011 KLT 52) Mohamed v. Chancellor, University of Calicut. It is contended that undue importance should not be given to the form but what is to be considered is its substance. 8. The notice given by the plaintiff as Ext.A2 does not recite that possession had been given to the buyer. That does not contain any intimation that the vehicle was handed over. The mere fact that notice has been issued to both plaintiff as well as first defendant to surrender the vehicle, does not make the plaintiff cease to be the owner of the vehicle. As rightly, held by the courts below, the registered owner of the vehicle is liable to pay the arrears of tax. The plaintiff has not intimated the authorities in the prescribed form as to the transfer of his vehicle and so, the plaintiff still remains as the registered owner of the vehicle as per the records of the registering authority. In view of the above facts, the courts below were perfectly justified in holding that the plaintiff is not entitled to any reliefs in the S.A.No. 601 of 2000 5 suit. There is no ground to interfere with the findings of the courts below. No substantial questions of law arise for decision in the second appeal. The result is that the second appeal is devoid of any merits and it is accordingly dismissed. There will be no order as to costs. P.BHAVADASAN, JUDGE. ln