[Cites 19, Cited by 0]
Madras High Court
P.Janaki vs The Regional Transport Authority on 28 November, 2025
2025:MHC:2717
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Order reserved on : 08.10.2025 Order pronounced on : 28.11.2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE P.B. BALAJI
CRP.Nos.4038 & 4200 of 2022
& CMP.No.20951 of 2022
CRP.No.4038 of 2022:
1.P.Janaki
2.R.Ramani
3.S.Sulochana
4.V.Latha
5.R.V.Lakshmi
6.P.Vignesh ... Petitioners
Vs.
1.The Regional Transport Authority,
Tiruvannamalai,
Tiruvannamalai District.
2.R.V.Kuppusamy
3.R.V.Janarthanam ... Respondents
Prayer: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of Constitution of
India, to set aside the order of the State Transport Appellate Tribunal,
Chennai, made in M.V.Appeal No.18 of 2022 dated 15.10.2022, directing
the 1st respondent to transfer the permit in favour of the 3rd respondent in
respect of the state carriage, bearing Regn.No.TN-25-AZ-6395, plying on
1/30
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/11/2025 05:59:03 pm )
the route Devikapuram to Sathanur.
CRP.No.4200 of 2022:
P.Vignesh ... Petitioner
Vs.
1.The Regional Transport Authority,
Tiruvannamalai District,
Tiruvannamalai.
2.The Secretary,
Regional Transport Authority,
Arni, Tiruvannamalai District.
3.R.V.Janarthanam ... Respondents
Prayer: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of Constitution of
India, to set aside the order of the State Transport Appellate Tribunal,
Chennai, made in M.V.Appeal No.17 of 2022 dated 15.10.2022, confirming
the order of the Regional Transport Authority, Tiruvannamalai, made in
R.No.263/A2/2021, dated 11.07.2022 and direct the Regional Transport
Authority, Tiruvannamalai to transfer the permit in favour of the petitioner
in respect of the stage carriage, bearing Regn.TN-25-AZ-6395, pying on the
route Devikapuram to Sathanur.
For Petitioners : Mr.M.Palani in both CRPs
For Respondents : Mrs.Radha Gopalan for R3 in both CRPs
Mr.N.Muthuvel
Government Advocate (CS) for R1
in CRP.No.4038 of 2022
2/30
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/11/2025 05:59:03 pm )
& for RR1 and 2 in CRP.No.4200 of 2022
No appearance for R2 in CRP.No.4038 of 2022
COMMON ORDER
These revision petitions challenge the order of the State Transport
Appellate Tribunal, Chennai, directing the 1st respondent/Regional
Transport Authority, Tiruvannamalai, to transfer the permit in favour of the
3rd respondent, in respect of stage carriage bearing Regn.No.TN-25-AZ-
6395, plying on Devikapuram - Sathanur route.
2.I have heard Mr.M.Palani, learned counsel for the petitioners in
both the revision petitions, Mrs.Radha Gopalan, learned counsel for the 3rd
respondent in both the revision petitions and Mr.N.Muthuvel, learned
Government Advocate (CS) for the 1st respondent in CRP.No.4038 of 2022
and respondents 1 and 2 in CRP.No.4200 of 2022.
3.Mr.M.Palani, learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioners
in both the revision petitions would submit that admittedly the mother of the
parties was holding the permit for the above said route. The mother was
survived by two sons and five daughters and it is alleged by the grandson,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/11/2025 05:59:03 pm )
P.Vignesh, through one of the daughters, that the mother had executed a
Will, bequeathing the said permit to the said grandson. He would invite my
attention to a writ petition filed by the mother, Baby Saroja in
W.P.No.15436 of 2015, where one of the daughters sought for return of the
Registration Certificate and Renewed Stage Carriage Permit for the period
12.01.2016 to 11.01.2021 and also the Insurance Policy relating to the
vehicle bearing Regn.No.TN-25-AZ-6395. The said writ petition was
disposed of by this Court, holding that pendency of the civil suit for
partition will not come in the way of the authority to return the documents
to the permit holder and the writ petition came to be allowed. Subsequently,
the said Baby Saroja, the mother died on 30.08.2021. On her demise, the
sons of R.V.Janarthanan and R.V.Kuppusamy sent death intimation letter to
the authority and the grandson, P.Vignesh independently informed the
authority about the demise of Baby Saroja, basing his claim on a registered
Will and a no objection from his mother, Janaki. He also staked a claim for
transfer of the permit. Subsequent to the death intimation issued by the
sons, one of them namely R.V.Janarthanan alone applied for transfer of
permit in his name, enclosing the legal heirship certificate. Even according
to Mr.Palani, learned counsel for the petitioner, all the daughters had given
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/11/2025 05:59:03 pm )
no objection for transfer of permit in favour of P.Vignesh, the grandson.
The son R.V.Janarthanan therefore filed W.P.No.21703 of 2021 before this
Court and this Court, by order dated 06.12.2021, directed the 1st respondent
to decide the applications filed by both the son R.V.Janarthanan as well as
the grandson, P.Vignesh, within a period of six months, in accordance with
law and especially, in the context of Section 82 of the Motor Vehicles Act,
1988 and Rule 214 of Tamil Nadu Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989, after giving
opportunity to the both the parties, as well as the other legal heirs.
4.This Court, in the meantime, directed that the vehicle shall be
permitted to be plied by the writ petitioner, as an interim arrangement and
by giving such a permission to the petitioner, it would not confer any right
on the petitioner, as the decision has to be taken by the 1 st respondent, on
merits, after conducting due enquiry. According to the learned counsel for
the revision petitioner, a hearing was conducted on 26.02.2022 and it was
found that the son R.V.Janarthanan had not complied with Rule 214 of
Tamil Nadu Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 and hence, his application was
rejected. Similarly, the application filed by the grandson was also rejected,
since the truth and genuineness of the Will had to be decided only by the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/11/2025 05:59:03 pm )
competent Civil Court and there was no such provision under the Motor
Vehicles Act or Rules made thereunder. Aggrieved by the said order of the
authority, both the son as well as the grandson filed appeals seeking transfer
of the permit in their respective names.
5.The Tribunal finding that the authorities are required to find out
whether the person making the application has succeeded to possession of
the vehicle, in terms of Section 82(3) of the Act, interpreted the expression
“succeeding in possession” and following the ratio laid down in
W.P.(MD)Nos.10526 & 10527 of 2012 dated 01.02.2013, proceeded to hold
that succession contemplated under Section 82(3) of the Act was possession
referable to definition or expression “owner” under Section 2(30) of the Act
and also found that the grandson, who relied on the Will, by producing a No
Objection Certificate from the mother, was blowing hot and cold and
ultimately found that physical possession was only with the son and not the
grandson and therefore, the son alone would qualify to be legal heir
succeeding to possession, allowed the appeal filed by the son and dismissed
the appeal filed by the grandson.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/11/2025 05:59:03 pm )
6.Mr.M.Palani, learned counsel for the petitioners would first and
foremost contend that the Tribunal has not adverted its attention to the
entire order passed in W.P.(MD)Nos.10526 10527 of 2012 and has culled
out a stray paragraph from the said order and has placed reliance on the
same. He would also attack the findings of the Tribunal that the grandson
was not sure about the Will, as he had obtained a No Objection Certificate
from the mother. In this context, Mr.M.Palani, learned counsel for the
petitioners would submit that under the Will, the mother Baby Saroja had
bequeathed the permit to the daughter, P.Janaki as well as the grandson,
P.Vignesh and in such circumstances, the mother, P.Janaki had given her
consent for transfer of permit in favour of one of the beneficiaries, namely
the grandson.
7.It is therefore the contention of Mr.Palani, learned counsel for the
petitioners that the Tribunal has not focussed on the relevant facts and
circumstances in a proper perspective and has misconstrued the orders
passed in the earlier writ petitions, in dismissing the appeal preferred by the
petitioner, grandson and by allowing the petition filed by the son of Baby
Saroja. He would further submit that all the original documents pertaining
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/11/2025 05:59:03 pm )
to the vehicle, including the permit were only available with the grandson
and without even adverting to the said crucial issue, the Tribunal has
ordered transfer of permit in favour of the son, R.V.Janarthanan. He would
also refer to the order passed in W.P.27350 of 2021 dated 06.01.2022 and
contend that when this Court had specifically directed the authority to
dispose of the applications of the son and the grandson, in terms of Section
82(3) and Rule 214 of Tamil Nadu Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989, the
authority, admittedly, without the consent of affidavits, has proceeded to
transfer the permit in favour of the one son alone and the same is contrary to
not only the statute and Rules framed thereunder, but also to the order
passed by this Court in the said writ petition.
8.Mr.M.Palani, learned counsel for the petitioners would also state
that the Tribunal has wrongly interpreted the phrase “succeeding to
possession” and when more than one legal heir is available, then all of them
would succeed, unless the other legal heirs give consent for transfer of
permit in the name of one of the legal heirs. He would therefore state that
Rules 214 of Tamil Nadu Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 has been flouted,
despite specific directions issued by the writ court, as between the parties to
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/11/2025 05:59:03 pm )
the lis. He would also rely on Rule 215, which enables the authority to issue
a duplicate permit, when the permit is lost and the Rule contemplates three
scenarios and none of the three scenarios were available to enable the son,
R.V.Janarthanan to get a duplicate permit in his name and the authority has
grossly erred in issuing a duplicate permit, contrary to the letter and spirit of
Rule 215 of Tamil Nadu Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989. He would therefore
submit that the Tribunal has clearly fell in error in directing transfer of
permit in favour of the son, in the absence of fulfillment of the mandate of
both Section 82(3) of the Act as well as Rule 214 of Tamil Nadu Motor
Vehicles Rules, 1989. He would therefore pray for the revisions being
allowed. He would also place reliance on the following decisions:
1.Metpalli Lasum Bai and others Vs. Metapalli
Muthaih (D) by LRs, reported in 2025 SCC Online SC 1488.
2.S.Parthasarathy Aiyar Vs. M.Subbaraya Gramany
and another, reported in Volume XVII L.W. Page 763.
3.Fateh Bibi Vs. Charan Dass, reported in AIR 1970
SC 789.
4.K.M.Anbarasu Vs. The Regional Transport
Authority, Dharmapuri in CRP.Nos.1081, 1082 & 1115 of
2020 dated 25.11.2022.
5.Kavitha Anantharamakrishnan Vs. M.Harikrishnan
and others in CRP(NPD).No.3869 of 2023 dated 25.07.2024.
6.P.Thandava Chetty Vs. The Regional Transport
Authority, Salem and others in W.A.No.342 of 1985 dated
23.04.1985.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/11/2025 05:59:03 pm )
9.Per contra, Mrs.Radha Gopalan, learned counsel appearing for the
3rd respondent in both the revisions would submit that there is no error
committed by the Tribunal in directing transfer of permit in the name of the
son. She would further state that admittedly both the son as well as the
grandson were unable to produce the requisite consents from the other legal
heirs. In the case of the son, he could produce no objection only from his
brother, whereas in the case of the grandson, he was able to produce the
consent only from the five daughters and not from the two sons. Therefore,
learned counsel for the 3rd respondent would submit that it is a peculier case
where it was impossibile to have complied with the mandate of Rule 214 of
Tamil Nadu Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 and moreover, civil suits are
pending with regard to partition and in the said suit, the question of
genuineness of the Will under which the the grandson claims, will have to
be tested and unless and until, the grandson succeeds in establishing the
truth and genuineness of the Will of Baby Saroja and the suit for partition is
dismissed, the grandson can never claim himself to be a person succceding
to possession in terms of 82(3) of the Act.
10.The learned counsel for the 3rd respondent would further state that
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/11/2025 05:59:03 pm )
when a person claims to succeed to possession, no intimation is required
and merely because the death intimation was given by two sons, it was
inconsequential and immaterial, as the application for transfer of permit was
made only by one of the sons. Section 82(3) of the Act, according to the
learned counsel for the 3rd respondent, pertains only to transfer of permit
and not intimation of death. She would therefore state that the Tribunal had
rightly relied on the order passed by this Court in W.P(MD).Nos.10526 &
10527 of 2012 and when the 3rd respondent had established that he was in
physical possession of the vehicle and there was also a direction to hand
over the originals and the officials attempted to retrieve the documents from
the grandson, the grandson conveniently evaded to give the documents and
only in such circumstances, the duplicate permit was issued, to enable the
petitioner to ply the vehicle in the permitted route.
11.The learned counsel for the 3rd respondent would also contend that
though this Court had directed the authority to follow Section 82(3) of the
Act as well as Rule 214 of Tamil Nadu Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989, Rule
214 of Tamil Nadu Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 is only directory and not
mandatory, as it relates to procedure and when it was practically impossible
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/11/2025 05:59:03 pm )
for either of the parties to comply with Rule 214 of Tamil Nadu Motor
Vehicles Rules, 1989, the order passed by the Tribunal in the given
circumstances does not call for interference. She would further state that
Baby Saroja, during her last days, was living with one of her dauthers,
Janaki and therefore, custody of all the documents pertaining to permit and
vehicle were only at the residence of the said daughter, P.Janaki. According
to the learned counsel for the 3rd respondent, the Will is fabricated
document, taking advantage of Baby Saroja staying with P.Janaki, they have
stage managed to create a Will and knock off the vehicle as well as the
permit unto themselves.
12.The learned counsel for the 3rd respondent would also state that the
partition suit has now been amended to include the permit, which is the
subject matter of the present revisions as well and therefore, the two civil
suits, which are now pending, will have to be tried and subject to the
decision rendered by the competent civil Court alone, the revision petitioner
can stake a claim for transfer of permit in his name and not otherwise. She
would also fairly state that the entitlement of the 3rd respondent, to
continuance of permit in his name, is only subject to the result of the civil
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/11/2025 05:59:03 pm )
litigation. She would also rely on the following decisions:
1.K.Vediammal and others Vs. The Regional Transport
Authority, Dharmapuri, reportd in 1989 Writ L.R-94.
2.K.Kumar Vs. Poomani and others in W.A.No.1511 of
2009 dated 28.10.2009.
3.The Regional Transport Authority, Salem and others
Vs. Secretary to Government, State of Tamilnadu, Home, P &
E (Tr.III) Department, Chennai in W.P.Nos.620, 621 & 1411
of 2007 dated 30.04.2020.
4.P.V.Kalyan Vs. State of Tamil Nadu, Represented by
its Secretary, Home, P & E (Tr.III) Department, Chennai and
others in W.P.(MD)No.10526 of 2012 dated 01.02.2013.
5.R.V.Janarthanam Vs. The Regional Transport
Authority, Tiruvannamalai and others in W.P.No.21703 of
2021 dated 06.12.2021.
6.G.Somasundaramudaliar Vs. The Regional
Transport Authority, District Collector, Collectorate,
Nagapattinam District and others in W.P.No.1378 of 2022
dated 03.02.2022.
7.G.Somasundara Mudaliar Vs. The Regional
Transport Authority, District Collector, Collectorate,
Nagapattinam and others in W.A.No.2269 of 2022 dated
13.10.2022.
8.Kavitha Anantharamakrishnan Vs. M.Harikrishnan
and others in CRP.(NPD).No.3869 of 2023 dated
25.07.2024.
9.A.Jameela Beevi (Died) and another Vs. The
Regional Transport Authority, Tiruchirapalli in CRP.No.162
of 2022 dated 25.10.2024.
10.G.Parvatham (Deceased) and another Vs. The
Regional Transport Authority, Salem in W.P.No.24853 of
2021 dated 09.12.2024.
11.P.V.Kalyan Vs. The Regional Transport Authority,
Pudukottai and others in W.A.(MD).No.175 of 2013 dated
12.08.2013.
12.R.V.K.Ravichandran Vs. The Regional Transport
Authority, Villupuram and others in W.P.No.25629 of 2011
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/11/2025 05:59:03 pm )
dated 18.06.2025.
13.K.Senthil Arumugam Vs. The Regional Transport
Authority, Tirunelveli District and others in
W.P.(MD).No.20064 of 2023 dated 07.09.2023.
13.I have carefully considered the submissions advanced by the
learned counsel on either side.
14.It is not in dispute that the permit holder was originally one Baby
Saroja, the grandmother of the revision petitioner in both the revsions.
According to the learned counsel for the revision petitioner, his
grandmother has executed a registered Will in his favour as well as in
favour of his mother, P.Janaki and under the said Will, the permit as well as
the vehicle in question, have been bequeathed to the revision petitioner and
his mother. As the permit can be transferred only in an individual name, the
mother of the petitioner has given consent for transfer of the permit in the
name of the revision petitioner, grandson. All the other daughters of Baby
Saroja have also expressed no objection for transfer of permit in favour of
the grandson. However, the two sons have not consented to transfer of
permit based on the Will, which is the subject matter of the dispute in two
civil suits, namely O.S.No.31 of 2013 and O.S.No.82 of 2021. O.S.No.82 of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/11/2025 05:59:03 pm )
2021 has been filed by the son, to declare the alleged Will of Baby Saroja
dated 09.07.2021 as null and void and for a permanent injunction to restrain
the defendants from interfering with the 3rd respondent's peaceful
possession.
15.Another suit has been filed in O.S.No.31 of 2013 before the
Distirct Judge, Tiruvannamalai and the same has been transferred and
renumbered as O.S.No.2 of 2018, which is pending before the Mahila Court
and the said suit is for partition filed by the other son, R.V.Kuppusamy and
in the said suit, the subject vehicle has been included as one of the items of
property, by way of amendment. Both the suits are admittedly pending.
16.In order to appreciate the contentions of the learned counsel
appearing for the parties, it would be relevant to extract Section 82(2) of the
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, as well as Rule 214 of the Tamil Nadu Motor
Vehicles Rules, 1989 hereunder, for easy reference.
“82. Transfer of permit;-
(2) Where the holder of a permit dies, the person
succeeding to the possession of the vehicle covered by the
permit may, for a period of three months, use the permit as if
it had been granted to himself:
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/11/2025 05:59:03 pm )
Provided that such person has, within thirty days of the
death of the holder, informed the transport authority which
granted the permit of the death of the holder and of his own
intention to use the permit:
Provided further that no permit shall be so used after
the date on which it would have ceased to be effective without
renewal in the hands of the deceased holder.
Rule 214:
214. Transfer of permit on death of permit holder.—
(1) An application for the transfer of permit under sub-
section (3) of section 82 shall be accompanied by the fee
specified in the Table under rule 279 together with the
certificate of death of the permit holder issued by the
competent authority a heirshjp certificate Issued by an officer
of the revenue department not below the rank of a Tahsildar
qrid ''No objection Certificate" from all the legal heirs other
then the applicant, if there are more than one legal heir to the
deceased permit holder. If in such cases, the permit has been
endorsed or extended under the provisions of these rules, the
endorsement or extension shall cease to have effect on the
date of transfer unless the Transport Authority which granted
the endorsement or extension directs that it shall be
continued,
If the Transport Authority allows the transfer of the
permit it shall call upon the applicant to produce, within four
months from the date of receipt of the other sanctioning the
transfer, the certificate Of registration of the vehicle with the
particulars of the transfer of ownership of the vehicle stated
thereon together with valid certificate of fitness and proof for
the payment of the current tax under the Tamil Nadu Motor
Vehicles Taxation Act, 1974 (Tamil Nadu Act 13 of 1974) and
the permit. In the event of the applicant failing to produce the
relevant records within the period of four months aforesaid,
the transport authority shall revoke the sanction.
The Transport Authority may delegate the power
conferred upon it under sub-rule (2) to its Secretary in cases
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/11/2025 05:59:03 pm )
where the Secretary has sanctioned the transfer of permit.
The powers referred to in sub-rule (2) shall also be
exercisable by the appellate or revisional authority, as the
case may be, if the transfer of permit is allowed by such
authority”
17.In the present case, though this Court in W.P.No.21703 of 2021,
which was filed by the son, R.V.Janarthanan, directed the authority to
decide both the request for transfer, namely one by the son and one by the
grandson, in accordance with law with Section 82(3) of the Act and Rule
214 of Tamil Nadu Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989, after giving an opportunity
to both the parties and also the other legal heirs, I am unable to countenance
the submission of Mr.M.Palani, learned counsel for the revision petitoner
that the Tribunal has not adhered to the mandate of Section 82 of the Act as
well as Rule 214 of Tamil Nadu Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989.
18.As rightly pointed out by Mrs.Radha Gopalan, it was practically
not possible, in view of the peculier facts and circumstances of the case for
either party to comply with the mandate of Rule 214 of Tamil Nadu Motor
Vehicles Rules, 1989, by procuring consent affidavits of all other legal
heirs. Admittedly, there is rivalry between the parties and two civil suits are
already pending, one for partition and another to declare the Will executed
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/11/2025 05:59:03 pm )
by the original permit holder, as null and void. Therefore, at the outset, I do
not think that the Tribunal has committed any error in setting aside the order
of the authority in rejecting both the applications, for want of compliance of
Rule 214 of Tamil Nadu Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 and also satisfaction
of mandate of Section 83(2) of the Act.
19.No doubt, as contended by Mr.M.Palani, learned counsel for the
revision petitioner, the Tribunal has not noticed the fact that the learned
Judge, after referring to the earlier decisions of this Court, did not choose to
follow the ratio laid down in the earlier cases, as in all the three decisions
discussed in the said order, the effect of definition of 'owner' under Section
2(30) of the Motor Vehicles Act was not considered. However, even though
the Tribunal may have committed an error in not appreciating the ratio laid
down by this Court in P.V.Kalyan's case, I am unable to find that the said
irregularity has affected the final decision arrived at by the Tribunal, for the
simple reason that admittedly, the petitioner is not a legal heir entitled to
straight away claim that he is entitled to succeed to possession of the
vehicle. His right would accrue only upon establishing the truth and
genuineness of the Will, in the presence of the legal heirs of Baby Saroja.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/11/2025 05:59:03 pm )
Strangely, the grandson has sofar not filed any petition before the District
Court, to validate the Will of Baby Saroja. On the contrary, it is the 3rd
respondent who has filed a suit to declare the said Will, as null and void and
for consequential relief of permanent injunction.
20.Be that as it may, the said suit is pending as on date and there is
yet another suit filed by the other son of Baby Saroja seeking partition and
even in the said suit, the subject permit, as well as the vehicle are now
included in the schedule of properties. Therefore, in view of the ratio laid
down by this Court in P.V.Kalyan's case, that succession to possession
contemplated under Sections 82(2) and 82(3) of the Act can only be
referrable to definition of 'owner' under Section 2(30). Therefore, the
ultimate finding of the Tribunal that the petitioner cannot claim to be a
person succeeding to possession cannot be faulted.
21.The Tribunal has found that the authority has issued duplicate
permit and even before this Court, the petiitioner has admitted that the
vehicle is being run only by the 3rd respondent and it is only custody of the
original documents, that alone are claimed to be with the petitioner. In such
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/11/2025 05:59:03 pm )
circumstances, I do not see any error or irregularity in the direction issued to
the authority to transfer the permit in the name of the 3rd respondent. At the
same time, as already held by this Court in W.P.No.27350 of 2021 and the
mere fact that the permit has been directed to be transferred in the name of
the 3rd respondent, it will not clothe him with any advantage or right and the
transfer is subject to the final decision in the civil suits.
22.The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Metpalli Lasum Bai's case, held
that when the Will is a registered document, there is a presumption
regarding genuineness thereof and therefore, the Will should be acted upon.
However, I do not see how this decision would come to the aid of the
revision petitioner because in the said decision, the Will had been tested
before the competent Court and the trial Court had accepted due execution
of the Will, based on the evidence led before it. In such circumstances,
taking note of the fact that the Will is also registered, the Hon'ble Supreme
Court held that such Will, in the absence of suspicious circumstances shown
by the caveator/defendant, had to be accepted.
23.The Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in S.Parthasarathy
Aiyar's case, stated supra, held that a Will is a perfectly valid document and
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/11/2025 05:59:03 pm )
the executor under it can deal with the property and give perfectly good
title, though it may be that to complete title it requires probate to be taken
out at later date. This decision also was based on the fact that the Will,
though denied by the 2nd defendant, was accepted as genuine by the trial
Court. In the present case, the 3rd respondent has already filed a civil suit,
attacking the truth and genuineness of the Will and admittedly, the revision
petitioner has not moved for probate of the said Will. Therefore, this
decision also would not come to the rescue of the revision petitioner.
24.In Fateh Bibi's case, stated supra, the Hon'ble Supreme Court was
confronted with a question as to when succession opens to the estate of the
deceased and whether the provisions of the Hindu Succession Act would
even apply. Therefore, the facts of the said case are not in any manner
helpful to the present case on hand.
25.In K.M.Anbaru's case, stated supra, this Court held that if permits
are transferred notwithstanding withdrawl of no objection, then it would
amount to non-compliance of pre-condition under Section 82(2) of the Act
and the validity of the permit for four months, before which the ownership
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/11/2025 05:59:03 pm )
has to be substantiated, by procuring consents from other legal heirs is
required. In the said decision, this Court has held that inconvenience caused
to the public, in the event of the permit being cancelled was of no
consequence, as the bus operator is undertaking a commercial venture and
though the Motor Vehicles Act is intended for public convenience, the
transfer of permit cannot be allowed, without the consent of the legal heirs,
which is mandatory under Rule 214 of Tamil Nadu Motor Vehicles Rules,
1989.
26.There is no doubt that the requirement of Section 82(2) of the Act
as well as Rule 214 of Tamil Nadu Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989, is a pre-
condition as well as mandatory. However, when it is not possible for
effecting compliance of the provisions, in view of the peculier facts and
circumstances of the case, the vehicle being shown to be in the possession
of the 3rd respondent and the authority also having issued a duplicate permit
in the name of the 3rd respondent, who continuous to ply the vehile in the
permitted route all these years, I do not find that the Tribunal has committed
an error, by not following the mandate of Section 82(2) of the Act as well as
Rule 214 of Tamil Nadu Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/11/2025 05:59:03 pm )
27.In fact, the decisions, that have been relied on by the learned
counsel for the 3rd respondent, have all been on the premise that if the
permit is not transferred and it stands forfeited, then the general public, who
are using the services of the operator would be put to inconvenience and
hardhip and therefore, public interest should also be considered, while
deciding an application for transfer of permit. However, I do not even deem
it necessary to go into the issue of public interest in the present case, for the
simple reason that the 3rd respondent is admittedly plying the vehicle and the
only stumbling block for the 3rd respondent is the Will projected by the
revision petitoner. Unless the 3rd respondent succeeds in establishing the
truth and genuineness of the Will, he cannot claim to be entitled for transfer
of permit in his name.
28.This Court, in Kavitha Anantharamakrishnan's case, stated supra,
held that if there is any claim to a permit under a Will or a testramentary
instrument, then the same has to be proved before the competent Court.
Though reliance was placed on the judgment in P.Thandava Chetty's case,
stated supra, the Court appointed a Receiver by consent of parties and
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/11/2025 05:59:03 pm )
therefore, I do not see how this decision would be of assistance to the
revision petitioner. Similar view that unless the Will is proved, the
beneficiary under the Will cannot seek for transfer of permit in his name
was also taken in Jamila Bibi's case stated supra.
29.In G.Parvatham's case, cited supra, this Court finding that there is
a suit for partion pending, directed the petitioner to maintain accounts and
submit the same before the trial Court to enable the Court to pass necessary
orders at the time of disposing of the suit for partition and mesne profits.
30.In R.V.K.Ravichandran's case, states supra, this Court held that
when there a dispute with regard to the validity of the Will, then permit
cannot be transferred, based on the Will and it has to await the outcome of
the civil suit.
31.Similarly in K.Senthil Arumugam's case, stated supra, this Court
permitted transfer of the stage carriage permit, subject to the decision in the
partition suit.
32.In view of the ratio laid down by this Court consistently, there can
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/11/2025 05:59:03 pm )
be no second opinion that the revision petitioners' right to seek for transfer
of permit would arise only upon the Will being established in a manner
known to law. This can be done admittedly in the suit filed by the 3rd
respondent, challenging the same Will executed by Baby Saroja as null and
void.
33.This Court, even in the earliest writ petition in D.Naveen Kumar
Vs. The Regional Transport Authority, Vellore, in W.P.No.27350 of 2021
dated 06.01.2022, had protected the rights of the 3rd respondent and
thereafer, though the authority rejected the applications of both the sons as
well as the grandson and the Tribunal, taking note of the various decisions
of this Court, came to the conclusion that the permit can be transferred in
the name of the 3rd respondent.
34.Further, Mr.N.Muthuvel, learned Government Advocate, on
instrustions, would also submit that after the Tribunal allowed and direted
the transfer of permit in the name of the son, R.V.Janarthanan. Proceedings
were issued, calling upon the revision petitioners to hand over the original
records to enable the transfer, as directed by the Tribunal. However, the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/11/2025 05:59:03 pm )
revision petitioner has not complied with the said request made by the
authority and therefore, the Regional Transport Officer, Arni, has stated that
the request of the son, R.V.Janarthanan to issue duplicate RC book has been
acceeded to, consequent to refusal of the revision petitioner to hand over the
RC book and the permit.
35.In such circumstances, I am unable to find fault with the authority
to have issued a duplicate permit under Rule 215 of Tamil Nadu Motor
Vehicles Rules, 1989, even though the case did not fit within any of the
three categories, enumerated under Rule 215 of Tamil Nadu Motor Vehicles
Rules, 1989. The arguments of Mr.Palani, learned counsel for the
petitioners, in this regard therefore, cannot be countenanced. I do not find
any infirmity in the findings arrived at by the Tribunal, warranting
interference in revisions. It is however made clear that the continuance of
permit in the name of the 3rd respondent is subject to the decision with
regard to the truth and genuineness of the Will, which will be ultimately
tested in the suits in O.S.No.2 of 2018 and O.S.No.82 of 2021. Considering
the fact that suits are pending for past several years and also to avoid
multiplicity of proceedings, invoking my power under Article 227 of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/11/2025 05:59:03 pm )
Constitution of India, I suo motu transfer the suit pending in O.S.No.82 of
2021 from the file of the District Munsif Court, Arni, to the file of the
Mahila Court, Tiruvannamalai, to be jointly tried along with O.S.No.2 of
2018 (formerly O.S.No.31 of 2013 before the District Judge,
Tiruvannamalai) and in the event of the petitioner succeeding ultimately, he
shall be entitled to seek for rendition of accounts, right fom the date of the
permit being transferred in the name of the 3rd respondent, without even
limitation being put against him.
36.Though I had even suggested in open Court if the 3rd respondent
can be called upon to maintain true and proper accounts, Mr.M.Palani,
learned counsel for the revision petitioner contended that there is no
guarantee that the 3rd respondent is going to furnish a true statement of
income and expenses and therefore, it would be an exercise in fulity. In
view of the above, I do not venture to issue any directions in this regard. To
avoid multiplicity of proceedings and also to save valuable judicial time, I
am inclined to suo motu transfer O.S.No.82 of 2021 from the file of the
District Munsif Court, Arni to the file of the Mahila Court, Tiruvannamalai,
to be jointly tried along with O.S.No.2 of 2018 (formerly O.S.No.31 of 2013
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/11/2025 05:59:03 pm )
before the District Judge, Tiruvannamalai). On such transfer, the Mahila
Court, Tiruvannamalai, shall expedite a joint trial and dispose of the suits on
merits and in accordance with law, on or before 30.04.2026 and subject to
the decisions of the Mahila Court, Tiruvannamalai, it shall be open to the
parties to move the Regional Transport Authority, for necessary transfer of
permit.
37.With the above direction and observation, the Civil Revision
Petitions are disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. Connected
Civil Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
28.11.2025
Neutral Citation: Yes/No
Speaking Order/Non-speaking Order
Index : Yes / No
ata
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/11/2025 05:59:03 pm )
To
1. The District Munsif Court, Arni.
2.The Mahila Court, Tiruvannamalai.
3.The District Judge, Tiruvannamalai.
4.The State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Chennai.
5.The State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Chennai.
6.The Regional Transport Authority, Tiruvannamalai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/11/2025 05:59:03 pm )
P.B. BALAJI,J.
ata
Pre-delivery order made in
CRP.Nos.4038 & 4200 of 2022
28.11.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/11/2025 05:59:03 pm )
