Supreme Court: Non-Registration of Transferred Vehicle Doesn't Invalidate Sale/Gift

In a recent verdict, the Supreme Court addressed the issue of whether the mere failure to register a transferred vehicle in the name of the new owner could invalidate a sale or gift transaction. The case arose from the non-disclosure of three vehicles allegedly owned by the family members of Arunachal Pradesh MLA Karikho Kri in his election affidavit.

Background and Legal Context

The vehicles in question—a scooty, a Maruti Omni car, and a motorcycle—had been transferred to third parties for consideration, but their registration remained unchanged as per the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The pivotal question before the Court was whether these vehicles could still be considered as belonging to the legislator's family solely due to the non-transfer of registration, and whether it would invalidate his nomination.

The High Court, relying on a previous Supreme Court judgment, concluded that the vehicles would still be treated as belonging to the legislator's family. However, the Supreme Court differentiated the present case from the precedent, emphasizing that the earlier ruling was specific to liability under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, not for general application.

Court's Analysis and Ruling

The Supreme Court reiterated that the conveyance of ownership of a vehicle is concluded upon execution of the sale/transfer document, with registration by authorities being a post-sale event. The failure to register the new owner's name does not invalidate the sale or gift transaction, nor does it imply continued possession and control by the former owner.

The Court reversed the High Court's decision, ruling that the non-disclosure of the vehicles in the election affidavit could not be considered a corrupt practice under the Representation of the Peoples Act, 1951. It observed that the vehicles had been either gifted or sold before the nomination filing, and thus were not owned by Kri's family during the election.

Impact and Conclusion

The Supreme Court's judgment clarifies that the non-registration of a transferred vehicle does not invalidate the underlying sale or gift transaction. Moreover, it underscores that such non-disclosure in election affidavits, when the vehicles were no longer owned by the candidate's family, does not constitute undue influence or corrupt practice.

In light of the insignificant value of the undisclosed vehicles compared to Kri's total declared wealth, the Court emphasized that their non-disclosure would not impact the accuracy of wealth declaration.

Ultimately, this ruling provides clarity on the legal status of transferred vehicles and affirms the importance of accurately disclosing assets in election affidavits without penalizing candidates for transactions beyond their control.