Sujatha C. v. Secretary, Regional Transport Authority Palakkad

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN** **MONDAY, THE 02ND DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2019 / 11TH BHADRA, 1941** ## **WP(C).No.23695 OF 2019(J)** ## **PETITIONER :** **SUJATHA C., AGED 45 YEARS W/O.LATE SURENDRAN, 30/147, SAKTHY NAGAR, MELAMURI.P.O., PALAKKAD.** **BY ADV. SRI.I.DINESH MENON** ## **RESPONDENT :** **THE SECRETARY,** **REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY,PALAKKAD, OFFICE OF THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER, COLLECTORATE.P.O., PALAKKAD-678001.** **BY SRI MANU RAJ K.J- GOVERNMENT PLEADER** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02.09.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** **WP(C).No.23695 OF 2019(J) 2** ## **J U D G M E N T** The petitioner is the widow of one Surendran. He expired on 28.05.2018, as evidenced by Ext.P3 death certificate. He was the registered owner of a stage carriage bearing Registration No.KL-09/W-3233. The certificate of registration of the said vehicle and the regular permit are placed on record as Exts.P1 to P2. The application, Ext.P4 made by the petitioner for transfer of ownership of the aforesaid stage carriage was returned insisting production of legal heirship certificate, as a pre-condition. The grievance of the petitioner is that despite submission of Exts.P5 relationship certificate and Exts.P6 and P7 declaration by other legal heirs, Ext.P4 application is not entertained by the respondent. The petitioner is before this Court in this writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking a writ of mandamus commanding the respondent Secretary of the Regional Transport Authority, Palakkad to accept Ext.P4 application [wrongly stated as Ext.P3 application in relief No.(i)] for transfer of vehicle KL-09/W-3233 from the name of late registered owner to the name of the petitioner, without insisting for Legal Heirship Certificate and taking note of the **WP(C).No.23695 OF 2019(J) 3** Relationship Certificate issued by the Village Officer and endorse the transfer in the RC particulars of the vehicle, within a time frame. ## 2. In **Bhagyalashmy P. v. Secretary, Regional Transport Authority, Palakkad [2010 (2) KLT 431]** , this Court held that since Rule 56 of the Central Motor Vehicle Rules does not stipulate 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. Paragraphs 5 to 8 of the said judgment read thus: “5. Though Rule 56 of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules does not specifically stipulate the production of a 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 **WP(C).No.23695 OF 2019(J)** **4** 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 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 is 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 **WP(C).No.23695 OF 2019(J)** **5** 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 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 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 **WP(C).No.23695 OF 2019(J)** **6** 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. 7. 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 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 **WP(C).No.23695 OF 2019(J)** **7** 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 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 of 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. 8. Therefore, the insistence of the respondent on the production of a document showing the entitlement of the **WP(C).No.23695 OF 2019(J)** **8** 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 her entitlement for such transfer of permit or transfer of ownership.” In such circumstances, this writ petition is disposed of by directing the respondent to accept Ext.P4 application made by the petitioner, if the application is in order and the petitioner is prepared to remit the requisite fee. Thereafter, the respondent shall pass appropriate orders on Ext.P4 application, strictly in accordance with law, taking note of the law laid down by this Court in the decision referred to supra, with notice to the petitioner, and also to other legal heirs of the deceased registered owner/permit holder. Necessary orders in this regard shall be passed, as expeditiously as possible and at any rate, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment. Sd/- ## **ANIL K. NARENDRAN** **JUDGE** NS **WP(C).No.23695 OF 2019(J)** **9** ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER(S) EXHIBITS:** **EXHIBIT P1** **TRUE COPY OF THE RC PARTICULARS OF THE VEHICLE KL-09 W 3233.** **EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE PERMIT OF KL-09 W 3233. EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE DEATH CERTIFICATE DATED 21.6.2018.** **EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE TRANSFER APPLICATION DATED 18.7.2019 WITH CHALAN.** **EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE RELATIONSHIP CERTIFICATE DATED 14.7.2019.** **EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE DECLARATION OF DKHASYANI DATED 18.7.2019. EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE DECLARATION OF PANCHAMI & RASMI DATED 18.7.19. EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF THE DECISION IN 2010(2)KLT 431. EXHIBIT P9 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WPC.NO.19793/19 DATED 2.8.2019.** ## **RESPONDENT(S) EXHIBITS : NIL**