Madras High Court
M/S.Sri Sai Hari Constructions vs The Inspector General Of ... on 25 January, 2022
WP.No.1080 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 25.01.2022
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE Mr. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN
WP.No.1080 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.1080 of 2022
ARC/3637/2020-21 dated 31.03.2021 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.223/2 measuring an extent
of 3.00 acres situated at Thallakari Village and Panchayat,
T.Nalligoundanpalayam, Pollachi Taluk, Coimbatore District, without
insisting for the production of original of the title deed and after registration,
return the registered sale certificate 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/3637/2020-21 dated 31.03.2021 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.1080 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.223/2 measuring an extent of 3.00 acres situated at Thallakari Village
and Panchayat, T.Nalligoundanpalayam, Pollachi Taluk, Coimbatore District,
without insisting for the production of original of the title deed and after
registration, return the registered sale certificate 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.223/2 admeasuring 3 acres situated at Thallakari Village,
T.Nalligoundanpalayam, Pollachi, Coimbatore District. Thereafter the loan
availed by the said Company had 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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP.No.1080 of 2022
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.7 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 31.03.2021 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
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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP.No.1080 of 2022
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
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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP.No.1080 of 2022
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
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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP.No.1080 of 2022
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
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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP.No.1080 of 2022
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 31.03.2021
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.223/2 measuring an extent of 3.00 acres situated at Thallakari Village
and Panchayat, T.Nalligoundanpalayam, 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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP.No.1080 of 2022
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 (½)
Index:Yes/No
Internet:Yes/No
Speaking/Non speaking
G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.
lok
To
1.The Inspector General of Registration,
Santhome High Road,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP.No.1080 of 2022
Pattinampakkam,
Chennai 600 028
2.The Sub Registrar,
Pollachi,
Coimbatore District 642 001
WP.No.1080 of 2022
25.01.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
