K. K. BIRLA, J. ( 1 ) THE dispute relates to the custody of tractor No. USC 8241 (hereinafter referred to as Tractor ). Shri Shiv Charan Singh, father of Senser Pal Singh, the present revisionist, was registered owner of this tractor who died on 6-10-1982. According to the revisionist, by the family settlement he became the exclusive owner of the tractor. According to Sri Mahmood opposite party No. 1, this tractor was sold by Senser Pal Singh to Shahabuddin, opposite party No. 2 for Rs. 32500. 00 and Mahmood purchased the tractor from Shabuddin on 25-7-1990 for Rs. 63,000. 00. These sales are denied by the present revisionist Sri Senser Pal Singh. The further facts leading to this revision may be narrated in brief. On 9-8-1990 police of P. S. Kanker khera (Meerut) made a report under S. 107/ l16, Cr. P. C. (Annexure 3 to the counter affidavit) against Mahmood and 26 others. The other parties are Hasmat and others. According to this report Mahmood sold some land to Hasmat and received sale consideration but did not give possession of the land. From the sale consideration he purchased the tractor from Shabuddin for Rs. 63,000. 00 Hasmat insisted either for the return for the money or for possession of the land. Akhtar son of Shaukat (party No. 2) removed the tractor from the compound of Mahmood and kept it in his own compound. There was apprehension of breach of peace on this account and therefore the report for action u/s. 107/ l16, Cr. P. C. was made and this tractor was taken into custody by the police. ( 2 ) EACH Mahmood and Shabuddin applied for the release of the tractor. One B. N. Sharma also applied for the release of the tractor alleging that he has purchased this tractor from Sensar Pal Singh. By an order dated 24-8-1990 the additional CJM released the tractor in favour of Mahmood on furnishing security and on the condition that he will produce the registration certificate within one month. Mahmood Ali moved an application for extension of the time for filing the registration certificate papers but the same was rejected by an order dated 24-9-1990 on the ground that the earlier release order stood automatically vacated on account of nonfiling of the papers. Mahmood Ali moved an application for extension of the time for filing the registration certificate papers but the same was rejected by an order dated 24-9-1990 on the ground that the earlier release order stood automatically vacated on account of nonfiling of the papers. ( 3 ) ON 25-9-1990 Sri Sanser Pal Singh, the present revisionist moved an application for the release of this tractor on the ground that Mahmood had nothing to do with the tractor. ( 4 ) THE Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate by his order dated 16-10-1990 released the tractor in favour of the present revisionist mainly on the grounds that the revisionist was the heir and, therefore, the owner of the tractor, that the sale in favour of Shahabuddin and then Mahmood was not proved and that the tractor had not been seized by the police from the possession of Mahmood. ( 5 ) MAHMOOD filed three revisions against the orders dated 24-8-1990 / 24-9-1990 and 16-10-1990. By a common order all these revisions were allowed by the Additional Sessions Judge and the Magistrate was directed to give back the tractor in possession of Mahmood. The main grounds for the orders were that in the proceedings under S. 457, Cr. P. C. the question of the ownership is not to be decided and the property should be normally returned to the person from whose possession the property had been seized, and that the tractor will have to be considered to be in possession of Mahmood. None of the parties is the registered owner if the tractor. Being aggrieved by these orders Senser Pal Singh has preferred this revision. ( 6 ) THE affidavit, counter affidavit and rejoinder affidavit have been exchanged and arguments were addressed before me for final disposal of the revision. ( 7 ) THE main contention of the learned counsel for the revisionist is that on the death of his father Shiv Charan, he became the owner of the tractor, that according to the police case even the tractor was seized from the custody of one Akhtar and not of Mahmood and that in any case in the proceedings under S. 457, Cr. P. C. it is the entitlement to the possession and not the actual possession which is relevant. P. C. it is the entitlement to the possession and not the actual possession which is relevant. It was further contended that in the exercise of the revisional jurisdiction the revisional court could not have reappraised the evidence or substituted his own view (vide the principle laid down in case of Pathumma v. Mohammad 1986 A Cr R 363 (CS) : (1986 Cri LJ 1070 ). There can be no dispute about this proposition unless the findings of facts are not borne out from the material on record, or the view taken could not have been taken. ( 8 ) BEFORE entering into the merits regarding the claim of the revisionist, one contention raised on behalf of the opposite party may be considered. As pointed out earlier, by the impugned revisional order the order dated 24-8-1990 imposing a condition while giving custody of the tractor to the opposite party and the order dated 24-9-1990 refusing the extension of the time for complying with this condition were also set aside. ( 9 ) IN the first order dated 24-8-1990 the Magistrate had found Mahmood to be in possession. The application for extension of time was given on the last date of expiry of the period. Normally the orders regarding registration of the papers may take more than one months time. Therefore in any case the Magistrates order for refusing the extension of time for complying with the condition was clearly unwarranted. That being so, the Magistrates order for taking back the custody of the tractor from Mahmood was also wrong. It may be pointed out that at the time when orders dated 24-8-1990 and 24-9-1990 were passed, Senser Pal Singh, the present revisionist, has not come into the picture. In the result if the revisional courts order setting aside the order dated 24-8-1990 regarding the condition, and order dated 24-9-1990 refusing the extension of time and taking back the custody of the tractor are maintained, the order of the Magistrate on the application of the present revisionist will automatically fai1. ( 10 ) NOW coming to the contention of the present revisionist regarding his claim, it has been contended by the learned counsel for the revisionist that the question of actual possession may be relevant under Ss. 451, Cr. P. C. and 452, Cr. P. C. but not under S. 457, Cr. ( 10 ) NOW coming to the contention of the present revisionist regarding his claim, it has been contended by the learned counsel for the revisionist that the question of actual possession may be relevant under Ss. 451, Cr. P. C. and 452, Cr. P. C. but not under S. 457, Cr. P. C. for which the question of entitlement of possession is relevant. It was further contended that the cases relied on by the court below were not under S. 457, Cr. P. C. ( 11 ) IN the case of Zafar Ali v. Tausik Hasan 1971 Cri LJ 986 it has been held that "it has been the consistent view of the court that where the property is recovered from possession of a person, a court for the purpose of an order under S. 523, Cr. P. C. must hold that he is entitled to its possession. It is only in certain circumstances that the property recovered from the possession of a person may be handed over to some other person. . . . . . . . . . . . or where the property is recovered from the possession of a person but this possession has been acquired either in a dishonest or unlawful manner. . . . . . . " section 523 of the Old Cr. P. C. was analogous to S. 457 of the new Cr. P. C. ( 12 ) IN the case of Brijendra Singh v. B. K. Gupta 1976 Cr. LJ 467 this court held that after the criminal proceedings are dropped, the property should ordinarily be returned to the person from whose possession it was taken. ( 13 ) THEREFORE, the contention on behalf of the revisionist that the question of actual possession is not relevant for the purpose of S. 457, Cr. P. C. cannot be accepted. ( 14 ) IN the case of R. K. Jaiswal v. State 1984 All Cr. R 290 it has been held that where the dispute is for the custody of truck it is to be released in favour of the person in whose name the registration certificate stood in preference to the person claiming on the basis of affidavit and other papers. ( 15 ) IN the case of Devendra Kumar v. State 1988 All Cr. ( 15 ) IN the case of Devendra Kumar v. State 1988 All Cr. R 491 : (1988 Cri LJ NOC (All) 14) the Motor cycle registered in the name of "d" was snatched by three persons. After lodging the FIR by "d" the motor cycle was taken from the possession of one Shiv Kumar. On this fact it was held that the term "person entitled to the possession of the property cannot be equated with actual possession. What is material is as to which of the two claimants is entitled to possession of the property. The order of the Magistrate giving Motor Cycle in the custody of "d" was restored. From these cases it comes out that it is not necessary in each and every case that the property should be delivered to the person from whose possession it has been recovered. It will depend on the facts and circumstances of each case that who will be entitled to the possession of such property. As pointed out earlier in the case of Zafar Ali (supra) as well it is observed that the property may be handed over to some other person when it had been acquired either in dishonest or unlawful manner. In the other case of Devindra Kumar (supra) "d" was the owner of the Motor Cycle who had lodged the FIR regarding snatching of it by three persons and it was in this connection that the Motor cycle was recovered from Shiv Kumar. The facts prima facie show that Shiv Kumar came into possession of the Motor Cycle in an unlawful manner. Similarly in the above cited case of R. K. Jaiswal also seizure took place on the basis of the FIR lodged by R. K. Jaiswal who claimed himself to be entitled to its possession. He too had lodged report under S. 406/ 420, IPC and then the vehicle was taken in custody by the police. ( 16 ) THE facts of the case before me are quite distinct from this case on a FIR being lodged the police reported for initiation of the proceedings under S. 107/ l16, Cr. P. C. The dispute was between Mahmood and other party of Hasmat. The proceedings were not initiated at the instance of the present revisionist. Initially the claim of possession was made by Mahmood and Shahbuddin and not the present revisionist. P. C. The dispute was between Mahmood and other party of Hasmat. The proceedings were not initiated at the instance of the present revisionist. Initially the claim of possession was made by Mahmood and Shahbuddin and not the present revisionist. According to the police report the tractor had been purchased by Mahmood which had been forcibly taken away by Akhtar and kept in his Gher. Therefore, prima facie the tractor was taken from the possession of Akhtar but the report also shows that he had removed it from the gher of Mahmood in unlawful manner. In the circumstances the tractor was rightly ordered to be given in the possession of Mahmood. In these circumstances it cannot be said that Mahmood was not entitled to the possession of the tractor. While deciding the question of entitlement of possession under S. 457 Cr. P. C. I am of the opinion that the manner and the circumstances in which the property has been seized and taken into custody by the police should also be considered and should not be ignored. ( 17 ) THE proceedings under S. 457, Cr. P. C. are summary in nature. They are not meant to determine the title of the property. It is always open to the party concerned to get his title or right established by a proper court. ( 18 ) MUCH stress has been laid on behalf of the revisionist that the tractor belonged to his father Shiv Kumar who was its registered owner. Admittedly he died in 1982. Till now the revisionist has not been issued registration of ownership by the Transport Authority and the matter is pending between the parties. Under S. 50 (2) of the Motor Vehicles Act 1988, if a person in whose name a motor vehicle stands registered dies, the person succeeding to the possession of the vehicle, shall make an application for the purpose of transfering the ownership of the vehicle in his name, to the registering authority. Under rule 56 of the central motor vehicles rules, 1989 such application has to be moved within three months. There were similar provisions in the old Motor Vehicles Act 1959. Under rule 56 of the central motor vehicles rules, 1989 such application has to be moved within three months. There were similar provisions in the old Motor Vehicles Act 1959. ( 19 ) IN spite of the fact that Senser Pal Singh moved an application for release at a quite belated stage, in his application he simply claimed that he was the owner of the tractor and the police had kept it in the police station. He did not allege at all how and when he was deprived of the possession of this tractor. As pointed out earlier no proceedings or complaint with regard to this tractor were made by him. In the circumstances I am of the opinion that no grounds for interference in the order passed by the revisional court have been made out. ( 20 ) IN the result, the revision is dismissed. The interim orders passed on 4/02/1991 and 7/02/1991 are disischarged. Revision dismissed. .