Featured image for Supreme Court Judgment dated 28-01-2019 in case of petitioner name C. Shanmugavel vs Eswari & Anr.
| |

Ownership Dispute Over Vehicle in Criminal Case: Supreme Court’s Verdict

The Supreme Court of India recently delivered a verdict in the case of C. Shanmugavel vs. Eswari & Anr., dealing with a legal dispute over the ownership and possession of a vehicle seized in connection with a criminal case. The dispute arose between the deceased’s wife and his brother-in-law, leading to multiple legal battles before the lower courts and eventually reaching the apex court.

Background of the Case

The case revolves around a vehicle—a 407 Max Cab four-wheeler bearing registration No. TN 59 BJ 9491—originally owned by Nachiappan, who was murdered on September 27, 2017. Following the incident, the police registered a case under Sections 302 (murder), 364 (kidnapping or abduction), and 379 (theft) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

After the murder, a legal dispute emerged over the possession of the vehicle between the deceased’s wife, Eswari, and his brother-in-law, C. Shanmugavel. Initially, Eswari gave a ‘No Objection’ for handing over the vehicle to Shanmugavel. Based on this, the Judicial Magistrate, Karaikudi, granted custody of the vehicle to the appellant.

Legal Dispute Over the Vehicle

  • After some time, Eswari withdrew her consent and filed an application seeking the vehicle’s custody, claiming ownership as the deceased’s legal heir.
  • The Judicial Magistrate, Karaikudi, passed an order on July 11, 2018, directing that the vehicle be taken into court custody.
  • Meanwhile, Shanmugavel filed a revision petition before the Madras High Court (Madurai Bench), arguing that there was a dispute over the vehicle’s ownership.
  • On September 3, 2018, the High Court dismissed the revision petition and upheld the lower court’s decision.

Arguments of the Petitioner

Shanmugavel contended that:

  • The vehicle was lawfully handed over to him based on the initial ‘No Objection’ provided by Eswari.
  • The lower courts failed to consider the ownership dispute before transferring possession to Eswari.
  • The seizure and re-transfer of the vehicle without proper legal backing violated his rights.

Arguments of the Respondent

Eswari countered that:

  • As the legal heir of the deceased, she had rightful ownership of the vehicle.
  • The initial ‘No Objection’ was given under different circumstances and should not override her rightful claim.
  • The lower courts correctly ruled in her favor by ordering the vehicle’s return.

Supreme Court’s Observations

The Supreme Court bench, comprising Justices R. Banumathi and R. Subhash Reddy, examined the matter in detail. The Court made the following key observations:

  • “The Judicial Magistrate was right in ordering the return of the vehicle to the first respondent being the wife of the deceased.”
  • “Once a person withdraws their consent regarding possession, the legal heir’s rights take precedence over previous agreements.”
  • “There was no need for a prolonged dispute, as the vehicle should naturally be returned to the deceased’s family.”

Supreme Court’s Final Judgment

  • The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal filed by Shanmugavel.
  • It directed the Principal District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate, Karaikudi, to ensure the immediate restoration of the vehicle’s custody to Eswari.
  • The Rs. 5,00,000 deposited by the appellant as a condition for the special leave petition was ordered to be refunded.

Impact of the Judgment

  • The verdict establishes a clear precedent on ownership claims over seized property in criminal cases.
  • It reaffirms that legal heirs have stronger rights to the deceased’s assets than third-party claimants.
  • The ruling prevents misuse of temporary ‘No Objection’ consents in disputes over property.

This judgment provides a significant clarification on how courts should handle ownership disputes arising from criminal cases. It ensures that the rightful owners, particularly legal heirs, are prioritized in possession-related disputes.


Petitioner Name: C. Shanmugavel.
Respondent Name: Eswari & Anr..
Judgment By: Justice R. Banumathi, Justice R. Subhash Reddy.
Place Of Incident: Tamil Nadu.
Judgment Date: 28-01-2019.

Don’t miss out on the full details! Download the complete judgment in PDF format below and gain valuable insights instantly!

Download Judgment: C. Shanmugavel vs Eswari & Anr. Supreme Court of India Judgment Dated 28-01-2019.pdf

Direct Downlaod Judgment: Direct downlaod this Judgment

See all petitions in Theft and Robbery Cases
See all petitions in Property Disputes
See all petitions in Judgment by R. Banumathi
See all petitions in Judgment by R. Subhash Reddy
See all petitions in dismissed
See all petitions in supreme court of India judgments January 2019
See all petitions in 2019 judgments

See all posts in Criminal Cases Category
See all allowed petitions in Criminal Cases Category
See all Dismissed petitions in Criminal Cases Category
See all partially allowed petitions in Criminal Cases Category

Similar Posts