Madras High Court
Mr.N.Samsudeen vs The Sub Registrar on 28 September, 2021
WP No.28482 of 2012
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 28-09-2021
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM
WP No.28482 of 2012
Mr.N.Samsudeen .. Petitioner
vs.
1.The Sub Registrar,
Sub Registrar Office,
Thiruvotriyur,
Chennai – 600 019.
2.The Recovery Officer,
Debts Recovery Tribunal-II,
4th Floor, Spencer Towers,
770-A, Anna Salai,
Chennai – 600 002. .. Respondents
Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India, praying for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the first
respondent to file the copy of Sale Certificate No.19/2012 (DRT
No.260/2001) dated 01.08.2012, issued by the second respondent in favour
of the petitioner, in Book No.1, maintained in the office of the second
respondent by making necessary entries therein as per communication dated
1/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
WP No.28482 of 2012
01.08.2012 issued by the second respondent to the first respondent.
For Petitioner : Mr.C.Johnson
For Respondent-1 : Mr.K.M.D.Muhilan,
Government Advocate.
For Respondent-2 : Mr.B.Sekar,
Central Government Standing
Counsel.
ORDER
The relief sought for in the present writ petition is to direct the
first respondent to file the copy of Sale Certificate No.19/2012 (DRT
No.260/2001) dated 01.08.2012, issued by the second respondent in favour
of the petitioner, in Book No.1, maintained in the office of the second
respondent by making necessary entries therein as per communication dated
01.08.2012 issued by the second respondent to the first respondent.
2. The grievance of the petitioner is that an application in
O.A.No.702 of 1998 was filed before the Debts Recovery Tribunal No.I,
Chennai and it was ordered. The Recovery Certificate in No.166 of 2000
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
WP No.28482 of 2012
was issued on 26.05.2000 in O.A.No.702 of 1998 relating to Plot No.127,
measuring n extent 4,140 sq. ft., in Survey No.1/1A, Thanigai Nagar,
Sadayankuppam Village.
3. The petitioner states that the Sale Certificate is not registered
by the Sub Registrar, despite the fact that decree was passed by the
Competent Forum. Thus, the petitioner is constrained to move the present
writ petition.
4. Under Section 17(2)(xii) of the Registration Act, the
Registration of Sale Certificate is an option and it is not compulsory. In
such circumstances, the Sale Certificate cannot be equated with the other
documents, which is to be registered compulsorily.
5. In this regard, the legal principles are settled in the case of
Cenney Hotels Pvt Ltd., through its Managing Director S.Venkatesh vs.
State of Tamil Nadu represented by Inspector General of Registration,
Santhome, Chennai-600 004 and others [2010 (4) CTC 802], wherein this
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
WP No.28482 of 2012
Court, in paragraph-14, observed as under:-
“14. A reading of the above judgment would
reveal that the purchaser of a property by sale
through Civil or Revenue Court has no
disadvantage because of lack of registration in
view of the fact that under Section 17(2)(xii) of the
Registration Act, Certificate of Sale is not a
compulsory registrable document and
consequently, the transfer of title in his favour will
not be vitiated by non-registration. But so far as
the certificate issued by the Authorised Officer is
concerned, it cannot be equated with the certificate
issued by the Revenue or Civil Court. As contended
by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner, the
nomenclature given to the document issued by the
Authorised Officer may not be relevant for giving
exemption from paying the stamp duty since the
Sale Certificate issued by the Authorised Officer
will not be covered by Article 18 of Schedule I of
the Stamp Act. In my considered opinion, the
judgment delivered by this Court in In Re, The
Official Liquidator, High Court, Madras, 2010 (2)
CTC 113 by considering the earlier judgments, has
set forth the correct position of law. In view of the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
WP No.28482 of 2012
above, I do not find any infirmity in the order
passed by the 1st Respondent.
In fine, the Writ Petition fails and the same is
dismissed. Consequently, connected M.P. is
closed.”
6. Section 89(4) of the Registration Act also would not apply in
view of the fact that the Recovery Officer of the Debts Recovery Tribunal
cannot be considered as a Competent Authority/Revenue Officer for the
purpose of forwarding the Sale Certificate for registration by the Sub
Registrar concerned. Thus, the sale by the Recovery Officer of the Debts
Recovery Tribunal is unconnected with the Sale Certificate, which is to be
forwarded by the Revenue Authority to the Sub Registrar.
7. Article 23 of the Indian Stamp Act, deals with conveyance
and the said provision would be applicable in respect of the facts and
circumstances of the case. This apart, the Chief Controlling Revenue
Authority and Inspector General of Registration issued a Circular in Letter
No.52070/C2/2011 dated 27.10.2011, categorically explaining these
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
WP No.28482 of 2012
situations and more specifically, in respect of the Sale Certificate issued by
the Recovery Officer of the Debts Recovery Tribunal.
8. Therefore, the Sale Certificate issued by the Recovery
Officer of the Debts Recovery Tribunal, is not considered as a document,
which is to be registered by the Sub Registrar and it is only an optional
registration and hence, a separate stamp duty and registration fee are to be
paid by the person, who seeks such registration under the provisions of the
Registration Act.
9. This being the position, the petitioner, if at all, ready and
willing to go for registration, he has to comply with the provisions of the
Registration Act as well as the Circular issued by the Chief Controlling
Revenue Authority and Inspector General of Registration on 27.10.2011. In
other words, the petitioner has to pay the stamp duty and the registration
charges, as applicable, in such registration.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
WP No.28482 of 2012
10. With the abovesaid clarifications, the writ petition stands
dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs.
28-09-2021
Index : Yes/No.
Internet : Yes/No.
Speaking Order/Non-Speaking Order.
Svn
To
1.The Sub Registrar,
Sub Registrar Office,
Thiruvotriyur,
Chennai – 600 019.
2.The Recovery Officer,
Debts Recovery Tribunal-II,
4th Floor, Spencer Towers,
770-A, Anna Salai,
Chennai – 600 002.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
WP No.28482 of 2012
S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J.
Svn
WP 28482 of 2012
28-09-2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
