JUDGMENT : J. Das, J. - This criminal revision arises out of the revisional order dated 7-9-1987 passed by Sri G.R. Dubey, Sessions Judge, Bolangir in criminal revision No. 62 of 1987 allowing the revision and setting aside the order dated 17-7-1967 passed by the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Sonepur in ICC Case No. 24 of 1987 directing to keep the motor vehicle in question in the zima of the accused who is the Petitioner in-this revision. 2. The motor vehicle in question is a truck bearing registration No. ORU 5767 and the said truck was in possession of the accused Balaram Nayak. 3. The complainant Bijaya Kumar Nayak at first lodged an F. I. R. in the Sonepur Police Station alleging that he is the owner of the truck bearing registration No. ORU 5767 and the said truck was forcibly removed by the accused Balaram Nayak (Petitioner) to his Saw Mill. As the police did not take any action, the complainant filed a complaint alleging that he is the owner of the truck bearing registration No. ORU 5767 and the registration certificate stands in his name. The complainant further alleged that the accused (Petitioner) is his adoptive father and he (complainant) was residing with him since his childhood and due to lack of good relationship, he left the house of his adoptive parents and went to village Nuagaon in the district of Cut tack along with the vehicle in question since 1986. It has been further alleged that for some time the complainant plyed the vehicle in the district of Cuttack. But as the transport business did not pick up well, he brought the vehicle to the district of Bolangir and plyed there. On 25-5-1987 in the early morning while the vehicle in question was parked near the agricultural farm, Sonepur, the accused (Petitioner) with the help of some persons forcily took away the truck from the driver and drove the same to his Saw Mill at Sonepur along with a sum of Rs. 9,000/- which the driver was keeping for purchase of new tyres. 4. The initial statement of the complainant was recorded and one witness on behalf of the complainant was also examined on S. A. u/s 200, Code of Criminal Procedure and the learned S. D. J. M., Sonepur took cognizance u/s 379, T. P. C. on 3-6-1987. 9,000/- which the driver was keeping for purchase of new tyres. 4. The initial statement of the complainant was recorded and one witness on behalf of the complainant was also examined on S. A. u/s 200, Code of Criminal Procedure and the learned S. D. J. M., Sonepur took cognizance u/s 379, T. P. C. on 3-6-1987. On the same day a petition u/s 94, Code of Criminal Procedure was also filed on behalf of the complainant for issuing search warrant. Vide order dated 4-6-1987 it was directed to issue search warrant. On 1-7-1987, the complainant filed a petition u/s 451. Code of Criminal Procedure claiming that he is the owner of the vehicle and the vehicle should be given in his zima during the pendency of the trail. On 2-7-1987 the objection was filed on behalf of the accused. The petition u/s 451, Code of Criminal Procedure was heard on 10-7-1987 and on 17-7-1987 the learned S. D. J. M. passed the order to give the vehicle in the zima of the accused. The claim of the complainant over the truck ORV 5767 is based upon the fact that the registration certificate stands in his name. The accused Balaram Nayak claimed the ownership of the vehicle. He stated that he purchased the vehicle in 1977 for a consideration of Rs. 60,000/- He has further stated that Natabar Mohanty and Abhaya Charan Mohanty were the partners and they were also the owners of the vehicle and the vehicle was registered in the name of Natabar Mohanty. After the partnership was dissolved. The vehicle fell to the share of Abhaya Charan Mohanty who transferred, the ownership of the vehicle in favour of the accused (Petitioner). The accused (Petitioner),also stated that out of the consideration of Rs, 60,000/-, he paid a sum of Rs. 30,000/- in the first instalment and the remaining Rs. 30,000/- was paid by him in 3 equal instalments. After the entire consideration amount was paid, the registration certificate was transferred in favour of the Petitioner (accused), at the desire of the accused, as the complainant was all along residing with the accused as his son and as the accused decided that the complainant should be saddled with responsibility. The registration was also transferred in favour of the complainant out of love and affection. The registration was also transferred in favour of the complainant out of love and affection. In any case, the accused has stated that the vehicle was purchased out of his own fund and he is the real owner of the vehicle and the complainant is only the ostensible owner. 5. The learned S. D. J. M., Sonepur considered all the documents filed by the accused (Petitioner) and believed his claim and held that the accused is the true owner of the vehicle and the vehicle should be given in his zima. 6. The learned Sessions Judge held that as the registration stands in the name of the complainant, he must be held as the owner of the vehicle and taking this view he passed the impugned order directing to give the zima of the vehicle to the complainant. 7. There is no document showing that the vehicle in question was acquired by the complainant (Opp. Party) out of his own fund. Only the registration certificate stands in his name. The learned Sessions Judge discussed various decisions in great detail and ultimately held that as per the registration certificate, the Petitioner is entitled to possess the vehicle and ply it and also he is held responsible for violation of the Motor Vehicles Act and Rules and unless the complainant, is given the zima of the vehicle, the vehicle will not be kept in roadworthy condition and it will be damaged. The complainant being the registered owner, only he is to ply the vehicle and hence, the vehicle should be given in his zima. 8. The learned advocate for the Petitioner argued that the learned Sessions Judge has misdirected himself and although he has discussed various decisions and the principles evolved therein, his order is not consistent with the principles enunciated by these decisions and hence, the order is vitiated. 9. The learned Sessions Judge has discussed many decisions. From all die decisions discussed by the learned Sessions Judge only 2 principles emerged: (i) The person entitled to the custody of property (vehicle in this case) should be given the zima of the vehicle. (ii) In case of motor vehicle, in respect of which the offence is committed, the person in whose name the motor vehicle stands with the registering authority, is entitled to the custody of the vehicle unless any other person establishes a superior title. (ii) In case of motor vehicle, in respect of which the offence is committed, the person in whose name the motor vehicle stands with the registering authority, is entitled to the custody of the vehicle unless any other person establishes a superior title. The above two principles enunciated by various decisions discussed by the learned Sessions Judge casts a duty on the court to make an enquiry as to who is entitled to the custody of the vehicle and in case of a motor vehicle whether there is any claim having superior title other than the person in whose name the vehicle stands registered. The learned Sessions Judge only took into consideration the fact that the complainant is entitled to the custody of the vehicle as the vehicle stands registered in his name and he has completely ignored the claim of the accused (Petitioner) and he has omitted to discuss the materials produced by the accused and to ascertain as to whether the accused has superior title. Hence, the approach of the learned Sessions Judge is neither legal nor proper. 10. The learned S. D. J. M. discussed the materials in great detail and also took into consideration the fact regarding the improbability of the complainant having owned the vehicle. To make it more clear, the learned S. D. J. M. held that the truck was purchased in the year 1977 and at that time the complainant was a minor, being 16 years of age only and hence it was not probable for such a minor to own a truck. The registration certificate was transferred in the name of the complainant on 16-1-1981 and at that time also the complainant was only aged about 19 to 20 years. It also appears that the complainant has not shown the nucleus out of which he purchased the truck. On the other hand, the accused (Petitioner) asserted that he purchased the truck on a consideration of Rs. 60,000/- and at the first instance he paid a sum of Rs. 30,000/- and subsequently he paid the remaining amount in 3 equal instalments on 5-4-1978, 7-9-1979 and 2-10-1980. These assertions of the accused (Petitioner) were supported by the documents i. e. the receipts granted by Abhaya Charan Mohanty who is the original owner of the truck. 60,000/- and at the first instance he paid a sum of Rs. 30,000/- and subsequently he paid the remaining amount in 3 equal instalments on 5-4-1978, 7-9-1979 and 2-10-1980. These assertions of the accused (Petitioner) were supported by the documents i. e. the receipts granted by Abhaya Charan Mohanty who is the original owner of the truck. Added to that Natabar Mohanty, who was also a partner of Abhaya Charan Mohanty in respect of the truck in question and other business, has also sworn an affidavit in support of the claim of the (Petitioner). As the complainant was staying with the accused (Petitioner) since his childhood and was being treated as the son or was also the adopted son (as claimed by the complainant), it is not improbable on the part of the accused (Petitioner) to transfer the registration certificate in the name of the complainant out of love and affection and also to saddle him with more responsibility. All these facts have been discussed by the learned S. D. J. M. and the order passed by the learned S. D. J. M. is based upon cogent reasons. The learned Sessions Judge has not assailed the reasons given by the learned S. D. J. M. although the reasons given by the learned S. D. J. M. shows that the accused (Petitioner) has a superior title over the truck and hence he is entitled to the custody of the same. Only taking into consideration the registration certificate standing in the name of the complainant and ignoring the reasons given by the learned S. D. J. M. showing superior title in favour of the accused (Petitioner), the learned Sessions Judge has passed the impugned order. This circumstance goes to show that the learned Sessions Judge has misdirected himself. 11. In a criminal revision it is quite unusual to interfere with the order of the lower court in cases in which the order of the lower court is based upon cogent reasons. Even though the revisional court might be a court of appeal and might have taken a different view, then also there is no ground for interference. When substantial justice has been done by the order of the lower court. Even there are cases in which orders made irregularly or even improperly, are not interfered with by the revisional court by taking a too technical view. When substantial justice has been done by the order of the lower court. Even there are cases in which orders made irregularly or even improperly, are not interfered with by the revisional court by taking a too technical view. Thus, the revisional jurisdiction is quite restricted and there is no scope for interference with the order unless there is miscarriage of justice or any illegality or irregularity or impropriety in the order or when the order is without jurisdiction. In any case, there cannot be any interference in the revision merely on a technical ground as it appears that the learned Sessions Judge has done in this case. 12. On perusal of the entire order of the learned Sessions Judge, it appears to me that he has taken a view that in order to find out the true claimant of the motor vehicle in question, the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act are to be looked into and as the complainant is the registered owner of the vehicle under the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, he should be held to be entitled to the custody of the vehicle. The learned Sessions Judge has also expressed his apprehension that unless the vehicle is given to the custody of the complainant in whose favour registration certificate stands, the vehicle may remain unused and become damaged and consequently it will not be roadworthy as the accused (Petitioner) may not ply the vehicle due to absence of registration certificate in his favour. The apprehension of the learned Sessions Judge does not appear to be well-founded. The impugned order was passed by the learned S. D. J. M. on 17-7-1987 by then the validity of the and permit had already expired and the fitness certificate was to expire on 18-7-1987. The Insurance Certificate of the vehicle was to expire on 7-1-1988. Thus, by the time.the revisional order was passed by the Sessions Judge on 7-9-1987, the fitness certificate and road permit had already expired, and the same required renewal. Under the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act there is no bar for the real owner to get the vehicle registered in his name and hence there could not have been any difficulty for the accused (Petitioner) to get his name registered in respect of the motor vehicle and to get the road permit and fitness certificate extended. 13. Under the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act there is no bar for the real owner to get the vehicle registered in his name and hence there could not have been any difficulty for the accused (Petitioner) to get his name registered in respect of the motor vehicle and to get the road permit and fitness certificate extended. 13. Under the Motor Vehicles Act, sale of the motor vehicle is not governed by the ordinary law relating to sales of movable property. The Motor Vehicles Act proceeds on the basis that it is the ostensible owner, who is entered as such in the registration book and he is to be considered as the owner of the motor vehicle for the purpose of the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act irrespective of the fact that the real own ership may be with somebody else. In a Division Bench decision reported in Smt. Padmadevi and Others Vs. Gurbakshsingh and Others, it has been held by following a decision of the Delhi High Court reported in 1967 Acc. C.J. 115 (Delhi) (Vimal Rai v. Gurcharan Singh): To my mind, the sale of a motor vehicle will not be governed by the ordinary law reltlting to sales of moveable property. The motor Vehicles Act, 1939 makes it compulsory for every owner of a motor vehicle to get the motor vehicle registered with the Registering Authority (vide Section 22). The Act prescribes by Section 24 the method of registration of a motor vehicle and by Section 31 of the transfer of ownership of a motor vehicle. A perusal of the various provisions of the Act leads to only one conclusion that ownership of a motor vehicle is to be evidenced by the registration as such with the Motor Registering Authority and the registration book which is supplied is the document of title. I think the Act proceeds on the basis that it is only the ostensible owner who is entered as such in the registration books, who is to be considered to be the owner of the motor vehicle irrespective of the fact that the real ownership may be with somebody else. Thus, the registration certificate does not in any way go to show that the property in the motor vehicle also vests with the person in whose name the vehicle in question is registered. Thus, the registration certificate does not in any way go to show that the property in the motor vehicle also vests with the person in whose name the vehicle in question is registered. There is always possibility that the ownership may be with somebody else. There is also no bar for the real owner to get the vehicle registered in his own name. This principle has not been taken into consideration by the learned Sessions Judge. 14. In the meantime there is another development which declares the ownership of the accused (Petitioner) over the motor vehicle in question. The accused (Petitioner) filed a suit, being T. S. 35 of 1987 in the court of the Sub-Judge. Sonepur and the suit was decreed in favour of the Plaintiff (accused-Petitioner) and the title of the Plaintiff over the truck in question was declared. This suit was pending at the time of the disposal of the petition u/s 451, Code of Criminal Procedure before the learned S. D. J. M., Sonepur and also the disposal of the criminal revision No. 62 of 1987 (impugned judgment by the learned Sessions Judge, Bolangir). The decree dispels all the doubts with regard to the ownership over the vehicle. 15. The learned advocate for the Opp. Party argued that an appeal has been preferred against the decree passed in T. S. 35 of 1987 by the Sub-Judge, Sonepur and in that appeal the operation of the decree has been stayed and hence the decree should not be taken into consideration. 16. The Title Suit No. 35 of 1987 is a declaratory suit and a declaratory decree has been passed. A declaratory decree is not capable of execution as it does not require the judgment-debtor to do or not to do anything. This is the established principle of law. The decree-holder is free to seek his legal remedies by way of another suit or otherwise on the basis of the declaration given in his favour. In a Full Bench decision of the Punjab and Haryana High. Court reported in Parkash Chand Vs. S.S. Grewal and Others it has been held that: A declaratory decree cannot be executed as it only declares the rights of the decree-holder qua the judgment-debtor does not, in terms, direct the judgment-:debtor to do or to refrain from doing any particular act or things. Court reported in Parkash Chand Vs. S.S. Grewal and Others it has been held that: A declaratory decree cannot be executed as it only declares the rights of the decree-holder qua the judgment-debtor does not, in terms, direct the judgment-:debtor to do or to refrain from doing any particular act or things. Since there is no command issued to the judgment-debtor to obey, the civil process cannot be issued for the compliance of that mandate or command. The decree-holder is free to seek his legal remedies by way of suit or otherwise on the basis of the declaration given in his favour. In a Division Bench declaration of the Andhra Pradesh High Court reported in The State of Andhra Vs. S. Kameswar Rao it has been held that when a decree granted by the trial court is one for a bare declaration, there is nothing to be stayed by the appellate court pending the appeal from the decree. In view of the above principles of law, it is not understandable as to how the decree passed in T. S. 35 of 1987 could be stayed. In any case, even though the decree passed in T. S. 35 of 1987 is not taken into consideration in view of the stay, then also there is enough material to hold that the accused (Petitioner) has a superior title over the motor vehicle, in question and he is entitled to the custody of the said motor vehicle. It has also been found that the learned Sessions Judge has interfered with the order of the learned S. D. J. M. in exercise of his revisional power erroneously and not in accordance with law. In these circumstances, the impugned order passed by the learned Sessions Judge must be quashed and the order passed by the learned S. D. J. M., Sonepur must be upheld. 17. In the result, the criminal revision is allowed and the impugned order passed by the learned Sessions Judge is quashed and the order passed by the learned Sub-divisional Judicial Magistrate, Sonepur is upheld. Revision allowed. Final Result : Allowed