JUDGMENT 1. - The petitioner has filed this petition under Section 482, Criminal Procedure Code. against the order dated 11.5.1994 passed by learned Addl. Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, No. 2, Nagaur whereby the learned Magistrate ordered for the delivery of the tractor No. RJD 5008 to the non-petitioner No. 2 Ram Kumar and the application of the petitioner was dismissed. 2. Shortly stating the facts of the case are that non-petitioner No. 2 filed a complaint before the Dy. S.P., Nagaur on 10.3.1994 alleging therein that he was registered owner of the above tractor, that he sold the same some 30 months ago to Shri Bhanwar Lal non-petitioner No. 3 for a sum of Rs. 1,30,000/- and received Rs. 5000/- as part payment of the above sale price. He then alleged that after the above sale, Bhanwar Lal did not pay the remaining amount of sale consideration and also did not return the tractor. It was further alleged that Bhanwar Lal in turn sold the above tractor to petitioner-Shiv Dan Singh for a sum of Rs. 1,31,000/- on 28.9.1991 and sale-deed was also executed. 3. The Police registered a case on the report of Ram Kumar and during investigation the tractor was recovered from the field of Shri Brij Raj Singh Charan, who is alleged to be a close relative of petitioner Shiv Dan Singh. 4. Before the learned Magistrate, Shiv Dan Singh as well as Ram Kumar filed claim praying for interim custody of the above tractor. Learned Magistrate in his order has stated that Shiv Dan Singh produced a sale-deed according to which he purchased the above tractor from Bhanwar Lal on 28.9.1991 for a sum of Rs. 1,31,000/- and also obtained its possession but the learned Magistrate found that Bhanwar Lal could not produce any sale-deed or document in support of his possessory title. Shiv Dan Singh after the alleged purchase took no steps to get the tractor registered in his name. He also did not produce any document in proof of his claim to seek interim custody of the tractor in his favour. Bhanwar Lal filed an affidavit in which he flatly denied that ever sold the tractor to the petitioner. 5. Learned Magistrate also noted that on the report of ram Kumar, after the investigation a challan for offence Under section 420, Indian Penal Code has also been filed. Bhanwar Lal filed an affidavit in which he flatly denied that ever sold the tractor to the petitioner. 5. Learned Magistrate also noted that on the report of ram Kumar, after the investigation a challan for offence Under section 420, Indian Penal Code has also been filed. Learned Magistrate, therefore, found that Bhanwar Lal obtained possession of the tractor by playing deception on Ram Kumar. He, therefore, thought it proper to order interim custody of the above vehicle in favour of Ram Kumar. 6. I have heard learned counsel for both the parties. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the tractor was recovered by the Police during investigation from the field of Brij Raj Singh, who is a close relative of the petitioner. Learned Magistrate erred in rejecting claim of the petitioner. The petitioner clearly stated that he purchased the above vehicle from Bhanwar Lal and copy of the sale deed containing the above agreement was also produced by the petitioner before the learned Magistrate. Learned counsel also submitted that even Ram Kumar has not denied this fact that he sold the above tractor to Bhanwar Lal. 7. Learned counsel for the non-petitioners has supported the order of the learned Magistrate. It was urged by him that in the first instance, the petitioner has not even laid prima facie evidence that the above vehicle was recovered from his possession. In the petition, the petitioner has stated that the Police recovered the above vehicle from the field of Brij Raj Singh Charan. The petitioner could not establish how Brij Raj Singh was having possession of the above vehicle on his behalf. At the second place, learned counsel urged, the petitioner could not have produced any document in proof of his better possessory title. He only produced a sale-deed executed by Bhanwar Lal in his favour, referred to above, but Bhanwar Lal could not produce any document that he purchased the above vehicle from Ram Kumar. In fact, Bhanwar Lal could not produce any document in proof of the fact that he was the owner of the above vehicle. Learned Magistrate, therefore, after considering the rival claims of the parties rightly decided to deliver the vehicle to Ram Kumar. Ram Kumar was also holding registration of the vehicle in his name. 8. I have considered the rival contentions. Learned Magistrate, therefore, after considering the rival claims of the parties rightly decided to deliver the vehicle to Ram Kumar. Ram Kumar was also holding registration of the vehicle in his name. 8. I have considered the rival contentions. The normal rule is that the interim custody should be made over in favour of the person who is registered owner of the vehicle in question. However, if some other person claims possession on the basis of sale-deed, he must produce the relevant documents. This view was taken in Sikandar Beg v. State of Raj., reported in 1993 Cr.L.J. 1114 . 9. In Champa Lal v. Ram Chandra, AIR 1976 Raj. 75 it was held that until transfer of ownership is entered in certificate of registration, the person in whose favour such certificate stands, is presumed to be the owner. 10. On the same analogy, in Ishwar Nath v. State of Raj., 1984 RCC 44 it was held that until transfer of ownership is entered in the Certificate of Registration person in whose name the vehicle is registered under the Motor Vehicles Act, is prima facie entitled to its possession. 11. In the instant case, the claim of the petitioner is founded on the agreement of sale executed by Bhanwar Lal non-petitioner No. 3 in his favour on 28.9.1991 in respect of the vehicle in question. Obviously, the petitioner is claiming title on the basis of transfer of rights of the above vehicle in his favour by Bhanwar Lal. It is seen that Bhanwar Lal has not produced a single document in proof of his prima facie title over the above vehicle. Bhanwar Lal therefore, failed in proving his prima facie title in respect of the above vehicle. It is settled law that a transferor cannot transfer any better rights than what he has. Hence, Bhanwar Lal did not pass any better title than Bhanwar Lal had and, as already stated, Bhanwar lal failed to prove any title over the above vehicle. In contrast, Ram Kumar has got registration of the vehicle in question in his name and there has been no transfer of the above vehicle in accordance with the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act.Learned Magistrate, in my opinion, has passed a correct order which does not require any interference by this Court. This petition, therefore, fails and it is hereby dismissed.Petition Dismissed. *******