Judgment :- 1. The appellant is the Travancore Forward Bank Limited, Kottayam and the respondents are the State of Kerala, the Traffic and Taxation Assistant, Kottayam and the Tahsildar of Ponkunnam. The appeal is filed against the order of this court dismissing Original Petition 454 of 1957 filed by the appellant. 2. The facts which led up to the filing of the Original Petition are the following: Lorries bearing registration Nos.TCK-1383 to 1387,1389 to 1394,1634 and MSTR-4278 were owned by Kadirkani Rowther, and were hypothecated by him in favour of the Travancore Forward Bank as security for the money borrowed by him and his brother. The registration of the vehicles was transferred to Shri K.V. George, the then agent of the Travancore Forward Bank at Ponkunnam, and Kadirkani Rowther was allowed to continue in possession of the vehicles. This is evidenced by Ex. P1 certificate of registration. Since Kadirkani Rowther defaulted in the payment of the debt, the Bank filed O. S.74/50 before the District Court, Kottayam and obtained a decree charged on the vehicles At the instance of the Bank a receiver was appointed to take possession of the vehicles and the defendants in that case continued to be in possession under a lease arrangement with the receiver. The vehicle tax Jell into arrears, and as it was not possible to realise the tax amount from Kadirkani Rowther the Traffic and Taxation Assistant ordered the recovery of the vehicle tax amounting to Rs. 23533-3-9 from the Bank who was the registered owner of the lorries. Accordingly a notice was served by the Tahsildar of Ponkunnam on the agent of the bank at Ponkunnam demanding payment of the amount. The bank objected to the payment and filed a petition before the Government which was rejected. Thereupon Original Petition 454 of 1957 was filed. 3. The main ground urged in the Original Petition as well as in this appeal before us is that the Bank is not liable to pay the tax as the meaning of Sub-S.1(a) of S.4 of the Travancore-Cochin Vehicles Taxation Act 1950, is that the tax shall be paid by the registered owner if he is in possession or control of the vehicle, and if he is not in possession or control, by the person having actual possession or control over the same. Sub-S. (1)(a) of S.4 of the Act reads thus: "The tax levied in respect of a motor vehicle in pursuance of a notification issued under Sub-S. (1) of S.3 shall be paid by the registered owner or person having possession or control of the motor vehicle, at his choice, either quarterly, half-yearly or annually, upon a quarterly, half yearly or annual licence to be taken out by him." The appellant's interpretation is based on the use of the conjunction "or" in the expression, "the registered owner or person having possession or control of the vehicle" Such an interpretation is not warranted. This is an instance in which as pointed out by Maxwell in his book'On Interpretation of Statutes (10th Edition, Page 233) to carry out the intention of the legislature, it is occasionally found necessary to read the conjunction "or" and "and", one for the other. 4. In S.8 of the Travancore-Cochin Vehicles Taxation Act 1950, which penalises the non-payment of tax, the conjunction "or" is again used in the same context. The section reads thus: "If the tax due in respect of any vehicle has not been paid, the registered owner or the person having possession or control thereof shall be punishable " 5. A somewhat similar provision is contained in S.182(1) of the Madras District Municipalities Act V of 1920. That section is as follows: "The Executive Authority may by notice require the, owner or occupier of any premises to remove or alter any projection ". The question whether the use of the word "or" in the section restricts the Municipality choosing the one out of the two persons to be proceeded against, came up for consideration in the case reported in A.I.R 1930 Madras, 510 (Public Prosecutor v. Pandaram and another. It was held that "the only object of S.182(1) in saying that the Chairman may require the owner or the occupier to remove encroachment is to enlarge the class of persons against whom notice may be sent and not to restrict it Either the owner may be proceeded against or the occupier or both. There is nothing in the use of the word "or" in that section which restricts the Municipality to choosing one out of the two persons to be proceeded against". There is nothing in the use of the word "or" in that section which restricts the Municipality to choosing one out of the two persons to be proceeded against". It is not disputed that in this case the Tahsildar took steps against Kadirkani Rowther in the first instance and it is only when they proved ineffective, steps were taken against the bank, the registered owner. 6. Sri. K. P. Abraham, the learned counsel for the appellant cited the cases reported in A.I.R. 1935, Bombay, 333 (Goolbai Motabhai Shroff and others v. Pestonji Cowasji Bhandari), A.I.R. 1950 Allahabad 234 (Uma Shanker Tewary and another v. Rex) and A.I.R. 1943, Nagpur, 22 (In re Bhagwant Gopal Pathak) in support of the contention that the bank in whose name the registration of the vehicles was transferred cannot be treated as the owner in whom the proprietory title vests. Those cases which arose under the Motor Vehicles Act, and dealt with the connotation of the word "owner" in the Motor Vehicles Act, are of no help in deciding the question in issue in this case. S.4 of the Vehicles Taxation Act refers to the registered owner of the vehicle and the word registered owner is described in S.2(8) of the Act itself as "the person in whose name the motor vehicle is registered or deemed to be registered under the Motor Vehicles Act." We find that the liability of the bank as the registered owner is absolute. 7. The only other point urged before us was that even if the registered owner is to be held liable, it is only Sri K.V. George in whose name the transfer of registration was effected who should be charged with the liability and not the Forward Bank. This belated plea is not one taken in the appeal memo, and is contrary to the admission made by the appellant in the O. P. itself. It is admitted in para 13(a) of the Original Petition that the transfer of the registration of the vehicle in the name of Sri K.V. George who was the agent of the Forward Bank at Ponkunnam was in favour of the bank. In the result, the appeal fails and is dismissed with costs. Dismissed.