J.B. Koshy, Ag. C.J.

Petitioner is an auction purchaser of an extent of 6.852 cents in Sy.No.84/3 in Elamkulam Village in Kanayannoor Taluk along with a building therein. Sale certificate was issued by Ext.P1. A copy of the sale certificate was forwarded to the first respondent Sub Registrar by the second respondent Recovery Officer to file the same in Book No.1 as per Section 89(4) of the Indian Registration Act, hereinafter referred to as the Act. But the same was sent back by the first respondent to the second respondent stating that as per clause 16 of the Schedule to the Kerala Stamp Act the sale certificate is to be prepared in stamp paper worth Rs.1,17,300/-. Challenging that view the writ petition was filed.

1. 2. The learned Single Judge relying on the decision of the apex Court in Shanti Devi L.Singh v. Tax Recovery Officer and others [(1990) 3 SCC 605] held that sale certificate is not a compulsorily registrable document and filing of a copy of the sale certificate in Book No.1 under Section 89(4) of the Act does not amount to registration of the document. It is true that filing of the sale certificate in Book No.1 will not put the purchaser at court or revenue sale under any disadvantage, even if it is not registered. But merely because the certificate of sale was not compulsorily registrable, there is no vitiating circumstance in the transfer of title. Learned Judge also held that in view of the decision in Santhi Devis case, registration charges are not payable and the Registration Officer has to act in terms of Section 89(4) of the Act read with Rule 21 of the ITCP Rules. The learned Judge also noticed that similar orders were passed in other cases and therefore, a direction was issued to file the sale certificate in Book No.1 as requested by the petitioner, in terms of Section 89(4) of the Act read with Rule 21 of the ITCP Rules. This is challenged by the State in the writ appeal.

2. 3. In Santhi Devis case the question decided was whether the sale certificate forwarded under Section 89(4) of the Act is not a compulsorily registrable document and filing of a copy of the same in Book No.1 under Section 89(4) of the Act does not amount to registration of the document and therefore, no registration charges can be collected. The question whether the certificate of sale is liable to be stamped was not decided. With regard to that point the Honourable Supreme Court held as follows:

"There are two provisions in the Stamp Act which provide for the adjudication of stamp duty. Under Section 31, it is open to the executants of any document, at any stage but within the time limit set out in Section 32, to produce a document before the Collector of Stamps and require him to adjudicate on the question whether the document should bear any stamp duty. The Collector thereupon may adjudicate the stamp duty himself or refer the matter to the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority of the State. In turn, it is open to the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority to refer the matter to the High Court for an authoritative decision (Sections 32 and 56). This procedure could have been followed by the petitioners if they wished to seek an answer to the question whether the certificate of sale is liable to stamp duty but they have not done it and the time limit under Section 32 has run out. The other provision that may become applicable is Section 33. Under this section, if any document (and this includes a certificate of sale) is presented to the Registrar for registration and the Registrar is of opinion that it is a document which should bear stamp duty but that it has not been stamped, it is his duty to impound the document and send it on to the Collector of Stamps for necessary adjudication (Section 38). This contingency has also not happened. The third contingency, also provided for Section 33 is when a party wishes to rely upon the certificate of sale as a piece of evidence before a court or an authority entitled to take evidenc