Ahmedabad: Hearing a revision application in the dispute over a Mercedes-Benz GLS 350D, the court observed: “What appears to be doubtful is that, why would a person purchase a luxury brand car in the name of somebody’s wife?”The broker told the court he purchased the SUV in 2019 but registered it in his friend’s wife’s name because his friend was facing documentation-related issues and could not buy it in his own name. He claimed he paid the loan instalments and retained possession of the vehicle despite the registration.The dispute came to light after Anandnagar police registered an FIR in Dec 2024 over the alleged theft of the SUV from the broker’s residence. During the investigation, police found the broker’s friend had allegedly taken the vehicle using a duplicate key and booked him for theft. Police later seized the SUV after a service station manager allegedly brought it to the broker’s residence.Both the broker and the friend’s wife approached a magistrate’s court seeking interim custody. The magistrate initially rejected the woman’s plea and granted custody to the broker, citing his possession and payment of instalments.The woman challenged that order before the sessions court, asserting she was the lawful owner. The sessions court questioned the broker’s explanation and noted the service station manager’s statement would be relevant, remanding the matter to the magistrate for fresh consideration after hearing the manager.After reconsideration, the magistrate again ruled in the broker’s favour, observing he financed the vehicle though it was registered in the woman’s name.The woman again moved the sessions court. Additional sessions judge Namrata Unadkat noted the vehicle loan was sanctioned in the woman’s name and the loan closure certificate was also issued in her favour. The court also observed the broker made no effort since 2019 to transfer the vehicle into his own name.In its order, the court said: “The court is required to ascertain as to who is prima facie lawfully entitled to have the custody of the vehicle and not merely who happened to be physically in possession thereof at the time of seizure. Mere physical possession at the time of seizure cannot supersede lawful ownership, particularly when the revisionist/applicant has established prima facie ownership by producing the registration as well as above-discussed documents.”Ahmedabad: A sessions court in Ahmedabad has ordered that custody of a luxury Mercedes-Benz SUV be handed over to its registered owner, casting doubt on a Prahladnagar-based property broker’s claim that he bought the vehicle in the name of his friend’s wife and used it for seven years.Hearing a revision application in the dispute over a Mercedes-Benz GLS 350D, the court observed: “What appears to be doubtful is that, why would a person purchase a luxury brand car in the name of somebody’s wife?”The broker told the court he purchased the SUV in 2019 but registered it in his friend’s wife’s name because his friend was facing documentation-related issues and could not buy it in his own name. He claimed he paid the loan instalments and retained possession of the vehicle despite the registration.The dispute came to light after Anandnagar police registered an FIR in Dec 2024 over the alleged theft of the SUV from the broker’s residence. During the investigation, police found the broker’s friend had allegedly taken the vehicle using a duplicate key and booked him for theft. Police later seized the SUV after a service station manager allegedly brought it to the broker’s residence.Both the broker and the friend’s wife approached a magistrate’s court seeking interim custody. The magistrate initially rejected the woman’s plea and granted custody to the broker, citing his possession and payment of instalments.The woman challenged that order before the sessions court, asserting she was the lawful owner. The sessions court questioned the broker’s explanation and noted the service station manager’s statement would be relevant, remanding the matter to the magistrate for fresh consideration after hearing the manager.After reconsideration, the magistrate again ruled in the broker’s favour, observing he financed the vehicle though it was registered in the woman’s name.The woman again moved the sessions court. Additional sessions judge Namrata Unadkat noted the vehicle loan was sanctioned in the woman’s name and the loan closure certificate was also issued in her favour. The court also observed the broker made no effort since 2019 to transfer the vehicle into his own name.In its order, the court said: “The court is required to ascertain as to who is prima facie lawfully entitled to have the custody of the vehicle and not merely who happened to be physically in possession thereof at the time of seizure. Mere physical possession at the time of seizure cannot supersede lawful ownership, particularly when the revisionist/applicant has established prima facie ownership by producing the registration as well as above-discussed documents.”The sessions court then directed that custody be handed over to the registered owner.The dispute has now reached the Gujarat high court, which has stayed the transfer of custody till Aug 31 and is scheduled to hear the matter further on that date.
