Madras High Court
M/S.Sri Sai Hari Constructions vs The Inspector General Of ... on 25 January, 2022
WP.No.1083 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 25.01.2022
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE Mr. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN
WP.No.1083 of 2022
M/s.Sri Sai Hari Constructions,
Represented by its Managing Partner,
R.Krishnakumar
Having Office at
No.19-20/5, Sasthri Street,
Poonga Nagar Premier Mills,
Othakalmandapam,
Coimbatore 641 032 ... Petitioner
Vs
1.The Inspector General of Registration,
Santhome High Road,
Pattinampakkam,
Chennai 600 028
2.The Sub Registrar,
Pollachi,
Coimbatore District 642 001 ... Respondents
Prayer :- Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the second respondent herein
to admit and register a sale certificate (for immovable property) in Edel
1/10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP.No.1083 of 2022
ARC/348/2021-22 dated 07.05.2021 executed by the authorized officer
M/s.Edelweiss Asset Reconstruction Company Pvt. Ltd. in favour of the
petitioner herein, in exercise of powers conferred under Section 13 of
SARFAESI Act, 2002 r/w Rule 6 of Security Interest (Enforcement)Rules,
2002 with respect to the lands comprised in SF.No.236/1B, 236/1E, 236/1F,
236/1G, 236/1I, 237/B2 totally measuring an extent of 7.56 acres situated at
Thallakari Village and Panchayat, Muthur, Pollachi Taluk, Coimbatore
District, without insisting for the production of original of the title deed and
after registration, return the same to the petitioner.
For Petitioner : Mr.V.P.Sengottuvel
For Respondents : Mr.Yogesh Kannadasan,
Special Government Pleader
ORDER
This writ petition is filed for direction directing the second
respondent herein to admit and register a sale certificate (for immovable
property) in Edel ARC/348/2021-22 dated 07.05.2021 executed by the
authorized officer M/s.Edelweiss Asset Reconstruction Company Pvt. Ltd. in
favour of the petitioner herein, in exercise of powers conferred under Section
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP.No.1083 of 2022
13 of SARFAESI Act, 2002 r/w Rule 6 of Security Interest
(Enforcement)Rules, 2002 with respect to the lands comprised in
SF.No.236/1B, 236/1E, 236/1F, 236/1G, 236/1I, 237/B2 totally measuring an
extent of 7.56 acres situated at Thallakari Village and Panchayat, Muthur,
Pollachi Taluk, Coimbatore District, without insisting for the production of
original of the title deed and after registration, return the same to the
petitioner.
2. Heard, Mr.V.P.Sengottuvel, the learned counsel for the petitioner,
and Mr.Yogesh Kannadasan, Special Government Pleader appearing for the
respondents.
3. The case of the petitioner is that one, M/s.Uthrakaliyamman
Infrastructure Private Limited had borrowed money from the State Bank of
India by mortgaging its properties including the land comprised in
SF.No.236/1B, 236/1E, 236/1F, 236/1G, 236/1I, 237/B2 totally measuring an
extent of 7.56 acres situated at Thallakari Village, Muthur, Pollachi,
Coimbatore District. Thereafter the loan availed by the said Company had
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP.No.1083 of 2022
become non performing asset and the company also went into liquidation.
Under an Assignment Agreement dated 30.03.2015, the State Bank of India
represented by its Authorised Officer and Chief Manager, Secured Assets
Management Branch, Coimbatore assigned the loans disbursed by the bank to
the petitioner Company along with the mortgage assets with M/s.Edelweiss
Asset Reconstruction Company Limited. It invited bids for sale of secured
assets of the borrower under the SARFAESI Act, 2002 and the Security
Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002 by publishing a public notice on
26.02.2021. The petitioner submitted its bid for the property described as Lot
No.6 in the sale notice dated 26.02.2021 and the petitioner has become the
successful and highest bidder. In pursuant to the same, the sale has been
confirmed in favour of the petitioner and after receipt of the entire sale
consideration, the sale certificate dated 07.05.2021 executed in favour of the
petitioner. The sale certificate was presented for registration before the
second respondent without the original parent deed, since the petitioner
requested M/s.Edelweiss Asset Reconstruction Company to hand over the
original deed in respect of the subject property. However the original title
deeds are in custody of the Debt Recovery Tribunal, Coimbatore in the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP.No.1083 of 2022
recovery proceedings initiated by the State Bank of India and they would
hand over the same, immediately on receipt of the same from the Debt
Recovery Tribunal after closure of the said proceedings. However, the second
respondent refused to receive the sale certificate for registration for want of
production of original parent deed.
4. It is settled law that nowhere Registration Act empowers the Sub
Registrar to insist for original parent document before registration and further
the circular issued by the first respondent dated 25.04.2012 has no force in
law, unless and otherwise such requirement is made under the Registration
Act. The Hon'ble First Bench of this Court in the case of Dr.R.Thiagarajan
Vs. The Inspector General of Registration and others in WP.(MD).No.3989
of 2017 dated 05.08.2019 held as follows:
15. In the judgment reported in 2013 (5) CTC 337
(P.M.Associates , Udhagamandalam Vs. IFCI Limited,
Chennai and others), the Division Bench of this Court held
as follows:-
“.... 30. In the judgment reported in
(2007) 5 Supreme Court Cases 745 [B.Arvind
Kumar Vs. Govt. of India and others], it is
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP.No.1083 of 2022
clear that when a property is sold by public
auction in pursuance of an order of the Court
and bid is accepted and the sale is confirmed by
the Court in favour of the purchaser, the sale
becomes absolute and the title vests in the
purchaser. The Sale Certificate is issued to the
purchaser only when the sale becomes absolute,
further, it is clear that the Sale Certificate is
merely an evidence of such title. It is also well
settled that when an auction purchaser derives
title on confirmation of sale in his favour, the
Sale Certificate is issued evidencing such sale
and title, no further deed of transfer from the
Court is contemplated or required. So far as the
registration of the Sale Certificate is concerned,
under Section 17(2)(xii) of the Registration Act,
the Sale Certificate issued by a Civil or Revenue
Officer does not fall under the category of non-
testamentary documents which requires
registration under sub-section 17(1)(b)and(c) of
the said Act. In the case on hand, the Sale
Certificate was issued by the Authorised Officer,
the second respondent. That being the case, the
auction purchaser derives title on confirmation
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP.No.1083 of 2022
of sale in their favour and the Sale Certificate
was issued evidencing such sale and title. In
respect of the registration of the Sale Certificate
issued by the second respondent, since the
second respondent is not a Civil or Revenue
Officer, the registration of the Sale Certificate is
not exempted under Section 17(2)(xii) of the
Registration Act. Therefore, we are of the view
that though the auction purchaser derived title
on confirmation of sale in their favour and a
Sale Certificate was issued by the Authorised
Officer, evidencing such sale and title, no
further deed of transfer is required. In view of
the judgment reported in (2007) 5 Supreme
Court Cases 745 and the provisions of 17(2)(xii)
of the Registration Act, the Sale Certificate
issued by the second respondent/Authorised
Officer requires registration.
5. The sale certificate was issued by the authorised officer under
the SARFAESI Act. That being the case, the auction purchaser derives title
on confirmation of sale in their favour and the sale certificate was issued
evidencing such sale and title. It is also well settled that when an auction
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP.No.1083 of 2022
purchaser derives title on confirmation of sale in his favour, the sale
certificate is issued evidencing such sale and title, no further deed of transfer
from the court is contemplated or required. The sale certificate issued by a
civil or revenue officer does not fall under the category of non testamentary
documents which requires registration and sub-section 17(1)(b) and (c) of the
Registration Act. Therefore, the second respondent ought not to have refused
to register the sale certificate produced by the petitioner since the sale
certificate executed by the authorised officer under SARFAESI Act in
exercise of powers conferred under Section 13 of SARFAESI Act, 2002 r/w
Rule 6 of Security Interest (Enforcement)Rules, 2002
6. In view of the above, the petitioner is directed to re-present the
sale certificate for registration and on receipt of the same, the second
respondent is directed to register the sale certificate dated 07.05.2021
executed by the authorised officer M/s.Edelweiss Asset Reconstruction
Company Pvt. Ltd. in favour of the petitioner in respect of lands comprised in
SF.No.236/1B, 236/1E, 236/1F, 236/1G, 236/1I, 237/B2 totally measuring an
extent of 7.56 acres situated at Thallakari Village and Panchayat, Muthur,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP.No.1083 of 2022
Pollachi Taluk, Coimbatore District without insisting for production of
original title deed and release the same. It is made clear that the sale
certificate issued by the authorised officer requires registration as well as
stamp duty under Article 18-C read with Article 23 of Schedule 1 of the
Indian Stamp Act.
7. With the above directions, the writ petition is allowed. No order
as to costs.
25.01.2022
lok (2/2)
Index:Yes/No
Internet:Yes/No
Speaking/Non speaking
G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP.No.1083 of 2022
lok
To
1.The Inspector General of Registration,
Santhome High Road,
Pattinampakkam,
Chennai 600 028
2.The Sub Registrar,
Pollachi,
Coimbatore District 642 001
WP.No.1083 of 2022
25.01.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
