Motor vehicle ownership follows transfer intention, not registration alone; equal share in a truck was upheld despite exclusive registration.

Ownership of a motor vehicle can pass by sale agreement or other clear transfer intention because a vehicle is movable property governed by the Sale of Goods Act, 1930; registration under the Motor Vehicles Act is regulatory and does not itself determine title. The registration certificate is evidence of registration for compliance purposes, but it is not a document of title and non-mutation does not defeat an agreed transfer. Where the parties admitted equal contribution and equal ownership, the other party's half share could not be denied merely because the vehicle remained registered in one party's name, and the objection based on exclusive registration failed.

---

---

Issues: Whether ownership of a motor vehicle can pass between parties on the basis of a sale agreement or affidavit even though the registration certificate continues in the name of one party, and whether non-mutation of registration prevents recognition of the other party's ownership share.

Analysis: The applicable rule is that transfer of a motor vehicle, being movable property, is governed by the Sale of Goods Act, 1930 and not by the registration entry in the motor vehicle records. The provisions relating to registration under the Motor Vehicles Act operate as regulatory requirements and impose duties to report transfer, with penal consequences for default, but they do not postpone or negate the passing of title when the parties intended the transfer. The registration certificate is evidence of registration and may be relevant for regulatory purposes, but it is not a document of title. On the admitted facts, the defendant acknowledged that both parties contributed equally toward purchase and were to hold equal shares, so the plaintiff's ownership could not be denied merely because the truck stood registered in the defendant's name.

Conclusion: The plaintiff's half ownership in the truck was upheld, and the appellant's objection based on exclusive registration failed.

---