Kerala High Court
Sundaram Home Finance Ltd vs State Of Kerala on 15 July, 2021
WP(C) NO. 6177 OF 2021 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V
THURSDAY, THE 15TH DAY OF JULY 2021 / 24TH ASHADHA, 1943
WP(C) NO. 6177 OF 2021
PETITIONER/S:
SUNDARAM HOME FINANCE LTD.,
(FORMERLY KNOWN AS SUNDARAM BNP PARIBAS HOME
FINANCE LIMITED), SUNDARAM TOWERS, 46, WHITES ROAD,
CHENNAI, PIN-600014, REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORISED
OFFICER, MR. ABU ROSHAN ANDREWS, AGED 33 YEARS,
S/O. JOSHY CYRIAC.
BY ADV VARGHESE C.KURIAKOSE
RESPONDENT/S:
1 STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF
REVENUE, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.
2 THE SUB REGISTRAR,
SUB REGISTRY OFFICE, WADAKKANCHERRY, THRISSUR-
680001.
3 THE VILLAGE OFFICER,
KUMARANELLOOR VILLAGE, THRISSUR-680031.
4 THE TAHSILDAR,
TALUK OFFICE, THALAPPALLY TALUK-680022.
SMT K AMMINIKUTTY, SR GP
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 15.07.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
WP(C) NO. 6177 OF 2021 2
JUDGMENT
The petitioner, a Housing Finance Institution, has approached this
Court being aggrieved by the refusal on the part of the respondents 3 and 4
in issuing Record of Rights certificate in respect of an item of property, the
right, title and possession of which has been taken over by them invoking the
provisions of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and
Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 ('SARFAESI Act' for brevity).
Alternatively, the petitioner has sought for direction to the 2nd respondent
to register the sale deed without insisting for production of RoR certificate in
view of the law laid down by this Court in Jacob P.C. v. Village Officer,
Ernakulam and Another [2020 (4) KHC 167].
2. The petitioner states that they are a Housing Finance Institution
registered under the Companies Act, 1956. It is contended that one Sudheer
K., and his wife Smt. Meena availed credit facility by creating a security
interest over an item of property having an extent of 2.02 Ares falling in Re-
Sy.No.30/133 and Old Sy. No. 249 situated within the limits of Kumaranalloor
Village. The loanees committed default and the asset was classified as a
non-performing one. Proceedings under the SARFAESI Act were initiated
and later, the property was sold in strict compliance with the provisions of
the Act. It is contended that the borrowers gave assent to the petitioner by
Ext.P2 letter to sell the property by way of a private treaty. On the strength
of Ext.P2, Ext.P3 agreement was entered into with one Sajeev P.G. and later
on satisfaction of the sale consideration, Ext.P4 sale certificate has been
prepared. For the purpose of registering the sale deed, a certificate under
the Kerala Record of Rights Act is necessary. The petitioner in the said
circumstances filed Ext.P5 application before the 3rd and 4th respondents.
However, they refused to issue the RoR certificate. No reasons were also
assigned for the refusal. It is in the above circumstances that the petitioner
is before this Court seeking directions to the 2nd respondent to cause the
registration of Ext.P4 Sale certificate/sale deed without insisting for
production of RoR and also a direction to respondent Nos. 3 and 4 to issue
RoR certificate to the petitioner to enable the transfer of ownership of the
secured asset.
3. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner
and the learned Government Pleader.
4. Section 10 of the Record of Rights Act, 1968 mandates that
certified copies of the entries in the Record of Rights shall be granted by
such officer on payment of the requisite fees. Exts.P1, P3 and P4 would
reveal that the proceedings were initiated under the SARFAESI Act which has
finally culminated in the issuance of Ext.P4 sale certificate in favour of Sri.
Sajeev P.G. In that view of the matter, there is no justification on the part of
the 3rd respondent in refusing to issue a Record of Rights as requested by
the petitioner. Furthermore, this Court in Synudheen v. State of Kerala
[2013 (1) KLT 221] and later in Jacob P.C. v. Village Officer, Ernakulam
and Another [2020 (4) KHC 167] has held that production of RoR certificate
is only optional and cannot be made mandatory and the registration officials
concerned will not have jurisdiction to refuse registration on the mere
ground that the party who presents the document has not produced the RoR
certificate in respect of the property concerned.
5. In that view of the matter, this writ petition is disposed of
directing the 3rd respondent to issue the Record of Rights certificate in
respect of property covered under Ext.P4 on the petitioner remitting the
requisite fees. The entire exercise shall be completed within a period of eight
weeks from the date of production of a certified copy of this judgment.
Alternatively, the 2nd respondent is directed to register the sale deed, if it is
otherwise in order, without insisting for the production of RoR certificate.
The petitioner shall produce a copy of the writ petition along with a
copy of the judgment before the concerned respondent for further action.
Sd/-
RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V
JUDGE
DSV
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 6177/2021
PETITIONER(S) EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE REPORT DATED
06/04/2018 SUBMITTED BY THE ADVOCATE
COMMISSIONER SRI. JITHIN BABU A.
EXHIBIT P2 TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE CONSENT LETTER
DATED 04/12/2020 ISSUED BY THE BORROWERS.
EXHIBIT P3 TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE AGREEMENT
DATED 15/12/2020 BETWEEN PETITIONER AND
SAJEEV P.G.
EXHIBIT P4 TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE SALE
CERTIFICATE.
EXHIBIT P5 TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE PETITION DATED
19/02/2021 SUBMITTED BEFORE 3RD
RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P6 TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN
WPC NO.8819/2019 DATED 10/04/2019.
RESPONDENT(S) EXHIBITS: NIL
