Madras High Court
The South Indian Bank Limited vs The Sub-Registrar on 13 January, 2021
W.P(MD)No.1685 of 2021
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
RESERVED ON : 26.03.2021
PRONOUNCED ON : 31.03.2021
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.PARTHIBAN
W.P(MD) No.1685 of 2021
The South Indian Bank Limited,
represented by its Authorised Officer cum Chief Manager,
Regional Office,
I Floor, YMCA building,
Oppo Astoria Hotels,
70 Feet Road,
Ellis Nagar,
Madurai - 625 016. ... Petitioner
Vs
1.The Sub-Registrar,
Joint Sub-Registrar No.1, Madurai South,
171, Palace Road,
Madurai.
2.M/s.Equitas Small Finance Bank Limited,
(Formerly known as Equitas Finance Limited),
Represented by its Deputy Vice-President Legal
Spencer Plaza,
4th Floor, Phase II, No.769, Anna Salai,
Chennai – 600 002.
3.M.Udayakumar ... Respondents
1/28
http://www.judis.nic.in
W.P(MD)No.1685 of 2021
PRAYER:Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India, to issue a writ of certioaraified Mandamus to call for the records in
regard to the proceedings dated 13.01.2021, RFL/Madurai South Joint
No.1/1/2021 of the 1st respondent and quash the same and direct the 1st
respondent to entertain and admit the registration of the conveyance deed
of the writ petitioner in favour of the 3rd respondent in respect of 5.27
cents of land in T.S.No.229/2 Iravadhanallur village, Madurai South
Taluk, Madurai District together with building in D.No.137A, 4
Kamarajar Salai, Madurai.
For Petitioner : Mr.Om.Prakash, Senior Counsel,
for Mr.A.R.M.Ramesh,
For R1 : Mr.V.Anand,
Government Advocate
For R2 & R3 : No appearance
ORDER
The petitioner is a bank represented by its authorised officer cum
Chief Manager, having its Regional Office in Madurai. One Surulivel
and Siva are the co-owners of the property having an extent of 5.27
cents of land in T.S.No.229/2, Iravadhanallaur, Madurai South Taluk,
Madurai together with building thereon in D.No.137A/4, Kamarajar Salai
Madurai.
http://www.judis.nic.in
W.P(MD)No.1685 of 2021
2.The said Surulivel and Siva mortgaged the same with the
petitioner bank by deposit of their title deeds, which was duly recorded in
a memorandum of deposit of title deeds dated 26.08.2015 registered as
document No.2885/2015 as security for the loan availed by their
partnership firm M/s.Shree Saravana Traders. The amount borrowed by
the firm was to the tune of Rs.55,20,00,000/-. Subsequently, the
partnership firm redeposited the title deeds by supplemental
memorandum of deposit of title deeds dated 14.12.2015 registered as
document No.4085/2015 towards security for availing an additional cash
credit facility of Rs.8,26,00,000/-.
3.The borrowers not repaid the loans in terms of the agreement and
the loan account was declared as Non Performing Asset (NPA) and the
petitioner bank initiated SARFAESI proceedings, which led to the
auction of the subject properties. According to the petitioner, the auction
sale was conducted on 11.12.2018 and the property was sold for a
consideration of Rs.74,00,000/-. In the meanwhile, it appears that the
2nd respondent initiated arbitration proceedings against the borrower
http://www.judis.nic.in
W.P(MD)No.1685 of 2021
M/s.Shri Saravana Traders and the Arbitrator passed an interim order of
attachment of the subject property on 23.04.2018 and the attachment
order has been duly effected by the proceedings of the District Judge,
Madurai under the provisions Section 17 of the Arbitration and
Conciliation Act, 1996 read with Section 136 of CrPC. In view of the
interim attachment order of the Arbitrator corresponding entries have
been made in the encumbrance document in respect of the subject
property by the 1st respondent office and registered as document No.
07/2018 dated 29.11.2018.
4.As far as the auction sale is concerned, the sale certificate was
issued on 07.01.2021 in favour of the 3rd respondent. In view of the
attachment and the entries made in the encumbrance certificate of the
subject property, the 1st respondent refused to register the document
namely, the sale certificate presented for registration and the refusal slip
is the subject matter of challenge in this writ petition.
http://www.judis.nic.in
W.P(MD)No.1685 of 2021
5.Mr.Om.Prakash, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the
petitioner would submit that the bank being the secured creditor and the
mortgage of the subject property had taken place much prior to the
attachment order by the Arbitrator in 2018, the bank has the first charge
over the subject property. According to the learned Senior Counsel that
there are number of judgments on the legal aspect that the right of
secured creditor to the mortgaged property would have precedence over
other creditors. There are relevant judgments in similar circumstances,
wherein directions were issued to the Sub Registrar to remove any
encumbrance of the attachment made in respect of the properties in order
to facilitate the registration of documents presented by the secured
creditors for registration.
6.The learned Senior Counsel would submit that in this case the
admitted facts are that there was a memorandum of deposit of title deeds,
which was recorded on 26.08.2015 as registered document and
subsequently supplemental memorandum of deposit of title deeds dated
14.12.2015, was registered as document No.4085/2015. Both being
http://www.judis.nic.in
W.P(MD)No.1685 of 2021
securities for the loan amount borrowed by the firm M/s.Shri Saravana
Traders. It is not open to the 1st respondent to rely on the subsequent
attachment order of the Arbitrator at the instance of the 2nd respondent on
23.04.2018, and refuse to register the sale certificate issued by the Bank
to the auction purchaser, the 3rd respondent herein.
7.It also transpired that after the petitioner had come to know of
the arbitration proceedings and the attachment order, an appeal was filed
against the interim attachment under Section 37 (2)(b) of the Arbitration
Act. However, pending appeal the petitioner was informed that there was
no legal impediment for registration of the sale certificate in view of the
settled legal position laid down by the Court and therefore, the petitioner
has chosen to file this writ petition for the relief.
8.According to the learned Senior Counsel that the decision of the
Courts is that the sale certificate issued in respect of the mortgaged
property by the bank would have precedence over all other claims and
the registering authority cannot refuse to register on the basis of the
http://www.judis.nic.in
W.P(MD)No.1685 of 2021
subsequent encumbrance made against the property. In support of the
legal contention, the learned Senior Counsel referred to paragraph No.4
of a decision reported in 2018 SSC Online Hyd 370 by the High Court of
Adhra Pradesh, which dealt with the issue as under :
“4.The common point for consideration in these writ
petitions is whether the sale certificates executed by the
bank in favour of the auction purchasers can be refused
registration by the Registrar under the Registration Act,
1908 on the pretext of an order of attachment before
judgment by a civil Court?”
9.Thereafter, vide a detailed reasoning and also with reference to
various other decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India and other
High Courts, the Division Bench of Andhra Pradesh High Court has dealt
with the issue extensively in favour of the submission made on behalf of
the petitioner herein. Paragraph Nos. 12 to 15 of the judgment are
referred to hereunder:
“12. The Supreme Court in Hamda Ammal V/s
Avadiappa Pathar2, dealt with an identical issue in the
light of Order XXXVIII Rules 5, 10 and Section 64 of
http://www.judis.nic.in
W.P(MD)No.1685 of 2021
the CPC, Sections 47 and 49 of the Registration Act,
1908 and also Sections 53 and 54 of the Transfer of
Property Act, 1882 and held as follows:
"2. In order to decide the above controversy
we would advert to some relevant provisions. Order
XXXVIII Rule 5 CPC which provides the conditions for
attachment before judgment reads as under.
'5(1) Where, at any stage of a suit, the Court
is satisfied, by affidavit or otherwise, that the
defendant, with intent to obstruct or delay the execution
of any decree that may be passed against him,-
(a) is about to dispose of the whole or any
part of his property, or
(b) is about to remove the whole or any part
of his property from the local limits of the jurisdiction
of the Court, the Court may direct the defendant, within
a time to be fixed by it, either to furnish security, in
such sum as may be specified in the order, to produce
and place at the disposal of the Court, when required,
the said property or the value of the same, or such
portion thereof as may be sufficient to satisfy, the
decree, or to appear and show cause why he should not
furnish security.
http://www.judis.nic.in
W.P(MD)No.1685 of 2021
(2) The plaintiff shall, unless the Court
otherwise directs, specify the property required to be
attached and the estimated value thereof.
(3) The Court may also in the order direct the
conditional attachment of the whole or any portion of
the property so specified.
(4) If an order of attachment is made without
complying with the provisions of sub-rule (1) of this
rule such attachment shall be void.' The above
provision itself makes it clear that the attachment
before judgment would be made where the court is
satisfied that the defendant is about to dispose of the
whole or any part of his property or is about to remove
the whole or any part of his property form the local
limits of the jurisdiction of court with the intention to
obstruct or delay the execution of any decree that may
be passed against him. Thus this provision would not
apply where the sale deed has already been executed by
the defendant in favour of a third person. A transaction
of sale having already taken place even prior to the
institution of a suit cannot be said to have been made
with the intention to obstruct or delay the execution of
any decree. It would be a different case altogether if a
creditor wants to assail such transfer by sale under
http://www.judis.nic.in
W.P(MD)No.1685 of 2021
Section 53 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 on
the ground of a fraudulent transfer. Such suit would be
decided on totally different considerations in
accordance with the provisions of Section 53 of the
Transfer of Property Act. Order XXXVIII Rule 10 CPC
reads as under
'10. Attachment before judgment shall not
affect the rights, existing prior to the attachment, of
persons not parties to the suit, nor bar any person
holding a decree against the defendant from applying
for the sale of the property under attachment in
execution of such decree.' This provision also makes it
clear that attachment before judgment shall not affect
the rights, existing prior to the attachment, of persons
not parties to the suit.
3. Section 64 CPC prohibits private
alienation of property after attachment and reads as
under:
'64. Where an attachment has been made, any
private transfer or delivery of the property attached or
of any interest there in and any payment to the
judgment-debtor of any debt, dividend or other monies
contrary to such attachment, shall be void as against all
claims enforceable under the attachment. Explanation:-
http://www.judis.nic.in
W.P(MD)No.1685 of 2021
For the purposes of this section, claims enforceable
under an attachment include claims for the rateable
distribution of assets.' The above provision bans or
prohibits a private transfer or delivery of the property
attached or of any interest therein contrary to such
attachment as void as against all claims enforceable
under the attachment. The order of attachment is issued
on a prescribed Form No.24 in Appendix E to CPC
which prohibits and restrains defendant from
transferring or charging the property by sale, gift or
otherwise. Thus neither in Section 64 CPC nor in the
form prescribed for attachment there is any prohibition
for submitting the document of sale for registration. The
act of submitting the sale deed for registration which
has already been executed prior to an attachment is not
an act of transfer which is prohibited under the above
provisions.
4. Section 54 of the Act defines sale as "a
transfer of ownership in exchange for a price paid or
promised or part-paid and part-promised". Thus after
the execution of the sale deed with consideration all the
ingredients of sale are fulfilled except that in case of
tangible immovable property of the value of Rs.100 and
http://www.judis.nic.in
W.P(MD)No.1685 of 2021
upwards it can be made only by registered instrument.
Now, if we read Section 47 of the Registration Act, it
clearly provides that a registered document shall
operate from the time from which it would have
commenced to operate if no registration thereof had
been required or made and not from the time of its
registration. This provision makes it clear that after the
registration it will relate back to the date of execution
of the sale deed. The act of registration is to be
performed by the registering authority. According to
Section 23 of the Registration Act a document of the
nature of sale deed shall be accepted for registration
within four months from the date of its execution. Thus
a statutory period of four months has been provided for
presenting the sale deed for registration from the date
of its execution. In case of dispute regarding the
execution of the document an enquiry is permitted
under Section 74(a) of the Registration Act and that
may also take some time. The legislature being alive to
such situations has already provided in Section 47 of
the Registration Act that it shall operate from the time
from which it would commence to operate if no
registration thereof had been required or made and not
from the time of its registration. Thus in our view the
http://www.judis.nic.in
W.P(MD)No.1685 of 2021
vendee gets rights which will be related back on
registration from the date of the execution of the sale
deed and suchrights are protected under Order XXXVIII
Rule 10 CPC read together with Section 47 of the
Registration Act."
13. In similar circumstances, the Kerala High
Court in The South Indian Bank Ltd. V/s The Sub
Registrar3, considered the question whether a sale
certificate is liable to be registered or not in view of the
order of attachment before judgment passed by the civil
Court and held that the secured creditor is entitled to
proceed with the registration and the Registration
Authority cannot stall the process of registration under
the garb of an order of attachment passed by the civil
Court.
14. The preponderance of judicial opinion
leads to the irresistible conclusion that the sale of the
mortgaged property in favour of the auction purchaser
and the sale certificate under the SARFAESI Act in such
circumstances is free of all encumbrances. The
attachments effected subsequent to the mortgage
created in favour of the bank do not affect the rights of
the secured creditor over the subject property. Such
http://www.judis.nic.in
W.P(MD)No.1685 of 2021
attachments have no impact on the sale conducted
under the Act and the same ceases to have any effect or
fall to the ground the moment the same is confirmed in
favour of the secured creditor Bank and auction
purchaser. Otherwise, those attachments would remain
as a permanent taboo prejudicially affecting the
marketability and title to the property even though they
ceased to have any legal efficacy and thereby it
becomes necessary to register the sale certificate.
15. Taking into account all these aspects and
reckoning the law in the subject as discussed above,this
Court has no hesitation to hold that the secured creditor
is entitled to succeed in these writ petitions. The writ
petitions are accordingly allowed directing the first
respondent in both the writ petitions to register the sale
certificates in accordance with the Registration Act.
Miscellaneous Petitions pending if any shall stand
closed. No order as to costs.”
10.The learned Senior Counsel has also referred to the following
decisions to strengthen his submission further:
http://www.judis.nic.in
W.P(MD)No.1685 of 2021
Indian Overseas Bank Vs Sub-Registrar, 2018 SCC Online Mad
5016 and he would particularly refer to the paragraphs Nos. 3 to 7 of the
said judgment, which read as under:
“3. We have heard the submissions of the learned
counsel for the parties and perused the materials available
on record.
4. Similar issue came up for consideration before
this Court in W.P.(MD).No.10724 of 2018, dated
06.12.2018, Central Bank of India Vs the Joint Sub-
Registrar No.1, wherein this Court has held as follows:-
7. In Assistant Commercial Tax Officer
(CT) v. Indian Overseas Bank reported in 2016
(6) CTC 769, the Full Bench of this Court has held as
under:“... 2. We are of the view that if there was at all any
doubt, the same stands resolved by view of the Enforcement
of Security Interest and Recovery of Debts Laws and
Miscellaneous Provisions (Amendment) Act, 2016, Section
41 of the sameseeking to introduce Section 31B in the
Principal Act,which reads as under:-
“31B. Notwithstanding anything contained in
any other law for the time being in force, the rights of
secured creditors to realise secured debts due and payable
http://www.judis.nic.in
W.P(MD)No.1685 of 2021
to them by sale of assets over which security interest is
created,shall have priority and shall be paid in priority
over all other debts and Government dues including
revenues, taxes, cesses and rates due to the Central
Government, State Government or local authority.
Explanation - For the purpose of this section, it
is hereby clarified that on or after the commencement of
the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, in cases where
insolvency or bankruptcy proceedings are pending in
respect of secured assets of the borrower, priority to
secured creditors in payment of debt
shall be subject to the provisions of that Code.”
3. There is, thus, no doubt that the rights of a
secured creditor to realise debts due and payable by sale of
assets over which security interest is created, would have
priority over all debts and Government dues including
revenues, taxes, cesses and rates due to the Central
Government, State Government or Local Authority. This
section introduced in the Central Act is with
“notwithstanding” clause and has come into force from
01.09.2016.
4. The law having now come into force, naturally
it would govern the rights of the parties in respect of even a
lis pending.
http://www.judis.nic.in
W.P(MD)No.1685 of 2021
5. The aforesaid would, thus, answer question (1)
in favour of the financial institution, which is a secured
creditor having the benefit of the mortgaged property.
6. In so far as question (b) is concerned, the
same is stated to relate only to auction sales, which may be
carried out in pursuance to the rights exercised by the
secured creditor having a mortgage of the property. This
aspect is also covered by the introduction of Section 31B,
as it includes secured debts due and payable to them by
sale of assets over which security interest is created”.
7. We, thus, answer the aforesaid reference
accordingly.”
8. For the sake of convenience, Section 26-E of
the SARFAESI Act, is extracted hereunder:
“26E. Notwithstanding anything contained in any other
law for the time being in force, after the registration of
security interest, the debts due to any secured creditor shall
be paid in priority over all other debts and all revenues,
taxes, cesses and other rates payable to the Central
Government or State Government or local authority.
Explanation.- For the purposes of this section, it is hereby
clarified that on or after the commencement of the
Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, in cases where
insolvency or bankruptcy proceedings are pending in
http://www.judis.nic.in
W.P(MD)No.1685 of 2021
respect of secured assets of the borrower, priority to
secured creditors in payment of debt shall be subject to the
provisions of that Code.”
5. In the light of the judgment of the Full Bench
of this Court reported in 2016 (6) CTC 769 (cited supra)
and on a conjoint reading of Section 26-E of the SARFAESI
Act and Section 31-B of the Recovery of Debts Due to
Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993, there cannot be
any doubt that the rights of a secured creditor to realise the
debts due and payable by sale of assets over which security
interest is created, would have priority over all debts and
Government dues including revenues, taxes, cesses and
rates due to the Central Government, State Government or
Local Authority, inasmuch as Section 31-B of the Recovery
of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act,
1993, was introduced with a “notwithstanding” clause and
it has also come into force from 01.09.2016.
6. In such view of the matter, we are of the
opinion that the order of attachment before judgment
cannot be a bar for the first respondent to register the sale
certificate in respect of the property in question and hence,
there cannot be any impediment for the first respondent to
register the sale certificate dated 20.03.2018 issued in
favour of the fifth respondent.
http://www.judis.nic.in
W.P(MD)No.1685 of 2021
7. Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed and
the impugned order passed by the first respondent is
quashed and consequently, the first respondent is directed
to register the sale certificate dated 20.03.2018 issued by
the petitioner bank in favour of the fifth respondent, within
a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of
this order. No costs. Consequently, connected Writ
Miscellaneous Petitions are closed”
11.The learned Senior Counsel also referred to the latest two
decisions of Division Bench of this Court in the cases of (i) R.Ramesh
Vs The Sub-Registrar, Budalur, SRO, Thanjavur District [W.P(MD)No.
8407 of 2020, dated 07.01.2021 and (ii) Tamil Nadu Merchantile Bank
Limited Vs the Joint-I Sub Registrar Office, Madurai and others
[W.P(MD)Nos.6976 and 1101 of 2021 dated 29.01.2021].
12.As regards the 1st decision is concerned, the learned Senior
Counsel would rely on the paragraph Nos.6 to 8 of the decision of the
Division Bench of this Court, which are extracted hereunder :
“6.The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the
http://www.judis.nic.in
W.P(MD)No.1685 of 2021
petitioner has placed reliance upon the order passed by a
Division Bench of this Court in Central Bank of India
Vs. The Joint Sub-Registrar and others [W.P.(MD)No.
10724 of 2018, dated 06.12.2018] reported in
MANU/TN/7117/2018, wherein at Paragraphs 9 and 10,
it has been held as follows:-
''9. In the light of the judgment of the Full
Bench of this Court reported in 2016 (6) CTC 769 (cited
supra) and on a conjoint reading of Section 26-E of the
SARFAESI Act and Section 31-B of the Recovery of Debts
Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993, there
cannot be any doubt that the rights of a secured creditor
to realise the debts due and payable by sale of assets over
which security interest is created, would have priority
over all debts and Government dues including revenues,
taxes, cesses and rates due to the Central Government,
State Government or Local Authority, inasmuch as
Section 31-B of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and
Financial Institutions Act, 1993, was introduced with a
''notwithstanding'' clause and it has also come into force
from 01.09.2016.
10. In such view of the matter, we are of the
opinion that the order of attachment before judgment
http://www.judis.nic.in
W.P(MD)No.1685 of 2021
cannot be a bar for the first respondent to register the
sale certificate in respect of the property in question and
hence, there cannot be any impediment for the first
respondent to register the sale certificate dated
14.03.2018 issued in favour of the tenth respondent.''
7.In such view of the matter, we do not find any
need to implead either the borrower or the plaintiff in the
suit. The borrower does not have any right in a case of
divested property. He has also not questioned the
attachment before judgment. Insofar as the plaintiff is
concerned, nothing has been discussed in the
proceedings about the order obtained for attachment
before judgment and he cannot have any grievance over
the registration of the Sale Certificate by the petitioner.
We are not deciding the inter se rights of the parties,
though we have quoted the order of the Division Bench of
this Court.
8.In such view of the matter, respondent No.1 is
directed to register the Sale Certificate, dated
09.03.2020, executed by respondent No.2 and presented
by the petitioner, within a period of four weeks from the
date of receipt of a copy of this order, after duly
complying with the other requisite formalities” .
http://www.judis.nic.in
W.P(MD)No.1685 of 2021
13.As far as the latter judgment in W.P(MD)No.6976 of 2020 is
concerned, attention of this Court is drawn to paragraph Nos. 8 to 13,
which are extracted as follows:
“8. Considering the similar issue, a Division Bench
of this Court, in which one of us [Hon'ble Mr.Justice
M.M.SUNDRESH] is a party, in a batch of writ petitions in
W.P.(MD)Nos.8546 of 2020, etc., batch, by order dated
09.09.2020, was pleased to hold that the proceedings under
the SARFAESI Act would have primacy, especially in a case
where the mortgage in favour of the Bank was earlier. The
aforesaid decision was rendered after taking note of the
judgment rendered by the Division Bench of the Gujarat
High Court in Bank of India v. State of Gujarat
[Manu/GJ/0130/2020] and a Full Bench judgment of this
Court in Assistant Commissioner (CT), Annasalai III
Assessment Circle v. Indian Overseas Bank [(2016) 6
CTC 769].
9. Reliance has been made on the order passed by
the learned Single Judge in Govindhji Jewat & Co., v.
Rukmani Mills Ltd., reported in 2020 (6) CTC 313,
wherein, the aforesaid principle has been reiterated. In the
said case, the learned Single Judge has held that the
mortgage being earlier, it creates a right in favour of the
http://www.judis.nic.in
W.P(MD)No.1685 of 2021
mortgagee and therefore, even the order of attachment
passed by the Civil Court will have to yield. In the said
judgment also, the learned Single Judge made reliance
upon the judgment of the Division Bench in S.Senthamarai
Kannan v. Chief Manager, Canara Bank, Palani Branch,
Dindigul District [CDJ 2020 MHC 2555].
10.In the case on hand also, the registered
mortgage was admittedly prior. The 9th respondent in W.P.
(MD)No.6976 of 2020 / 8th respondent in W.P.(MD)No.1101
of 2021 sought for an attachment in an arbitration
proceedings, in which, the petitioners Bank was obviously
not a party, as the transaction has got nothing to do with it.
The said order was also subsequent to the mortgage
created in favour of the petitioner. Now, a third party right
has also been created through the sale certificate issued in
favour of the auction purchasers, viz., respondents 7 & 8 in
W.P.(MD)No.6976 of 2020 and the 7th respondent in W.P.
(MD)No.1101 of 2021. If the 1st respondent raise a
contention that in view of the recording of the attachment
order by it already, the subsequent sale deed cannot be
registered, then the very act of recording the said interim
order of attachment passed by the Tribunal itself ought not
to have been done, as there was a subsisting mortgage on
http://www.judis.nic.in
W.P(MD)No.1685 of 2021
that date.
11. The learned Counsel appearing for the 9th
respondent in W.P.(MD)No.6976 of 2020 / 8th respondent in
W.P.(MD)No.1101 of 2021 submitted that there is a
procedure violation. We are not concerned with the said
issue. The question for consideration is as to whether the
earlier mortgage would prevail as against the subsequent
interim attachment. The question of procedural violation
can only be raised by the borrower, who did not do so.
Therefore, the said contention has got no relevance to the
case on hand.
12. The submission made on the maintainability of
the writ petitions is also rejected. We are not on the merits
of the order passed by the Arbitration Tribunal, which is by
way of an interim measure. The question is with regard to
the upholding of one's own existing right, which is prior to
the loan given by the 9th respondent in W.P.(MD)No.6976
of 2020 / 8th respondent in W.P.(MD)No.1101 of 2021, in
favour of the borrowers. Certainly, a mortgage deed creates
right over the properties mentioned thereunder in favour of
the mortgagee.
13. Therefore, looking from any perspective, we are
of the view that the petitioner Bank cannot be denied the
relief as sought for. In such view of the matter, both the writ
http://www.judis.nic.in
W.P(MD)No.1685 of 2021
petitions stand allowed. The first respondent in both the
writ petitions are directed to register the sale certificates
issued by the petitioner Bank in favour of the respondents 7
& 8 in W.P.(MD)No.6976 of 2020 and the 7th respondent in
W.P.(MD)No.1101 of 2021. Consequently, the
encumbrance / attachment entry made on the file of the first
respondent with respect to the properties, which are subject
matter of the two mortgage deeds and the subject matter of
these writ petitions, are directed to be deleted by the first
respondent.”
14.The learned Senior Counsel would submit that the above
decisions of the Division Bench have referred to several earlier
precedents on the same subject matter therefore, in all fours the issue is
covered and in the said circumstances, the refusal by the 1st respondent to
register the sale certificate cannot be countenanced in law.
15.Mr.V.Anand, learned Government Advocate would fairly
submit that in regard to the legal position he may not have any quarrel.
However, the 1st respondent has taken a decision not to register the
document was only because of the attachment of the property, which is
http://www.judis.nic.in
W.P(MD)No.1685 of 2021
reflected in the encumbrance. In any case, the learned Government
Advocate would concede the legal position in favour of the petitioner
and therefore, he would not wish to add anything more on this issue.
16.The private respondents in this case are not represented, despite
notice was served and their names were printed in the cause list.
17.This Court in fact recently has considered the similar challenge
and allowed the writ petition in State Bank of India, Stressed Asset
Recovery Branch (SARB), Madurai Vs The Joint – II Sub-Registrar,
Office of the Joint II Sub-Registrar, Karur and another in
[W.P(MD)No.71254 of 2020, dated 24.03.2021].This Court has followed
all the relevant earlier precedents and allowed the writ petition filed by
the bank. The Courts have consistently held in favour of the right of the
secured creditor and the law laid down is binding and to be followed. In
view of the finding, the ratio as held above has to be applied squarely to
the factual matrix to the present case as well.
http://www.judis.nic.in
W.P(MD)No.1685 of 2021
18.In the above circumstances, this Court has no hesitation in
allowing the writ petition. The impugned Refusal Check Slip in
RFL/Madurai South JointI/1/2021 of the 1st respondent is hereby set
aside and the 1st respondent is hereby directed to register the document
presented by the petitioner for registration, if the same is otherwise in
order.
19.In the result, the writ petition is allowed No costs.
Index : Yes/No .03.2021
Internet : Yes/No
dsk
To
The Sub-Registrar,
Joint Sub-Registrar No.1, Madurai South,
171, Palace Road,
Madurai.
http://www.judis.nic.in
W.P(MD)No.1685 of 2021
V.PARTHIBAN, J.
dsk
W.P(MD) No.1685 of 2021
.03.2021
http://www.judis.nic.in
