The main legal point established in the judgment is that a sale certificate sent for filing in Book-I under Section 89 of the Registration Act 1908 does not attract stamp duty, as it falls under the exemption provided in Section 17(2)(Xii) of the Act.

The writ petition has been filed challenging the order dated 27. 2009 issued by the respondent calling upon the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.10,39,122/- towards deficit stamp duty for entering the sale certificate dated 212. 2006 in Book I.

2. The case of the petitioner-trust is that one Mr.P.S.Ramachandran was successful bidder of the property to an extent 59.25 ½ acres of lands situate in Irumbarai and Ayyampalayam Villages, Sathyamangalam Taluk and Mettupalayam Taluk, Erode District in an auction. By an order dated 28. 2006 made in C.A.No.370 of 2006, the sale was confirmed in favour of Mr.P.S.Ramachandran for a sale consideration of Rs.1,73,43,642/-. Through order dated 20.12.2006 passed in C.A.No.2458 of 2006, this court directed the Official Liaquidator to issue "Certificate of sale" in favour of the nominee of Mr.P.S.Ramachandran in respect of the said lands, Mr.P.S.Ramachandran nominated the petitioner to be the auction purchaser and the auction consideration was paid. The possession of the property was given to the petitioner and Certificate of sale was issued to the petitioner by the Official Liquidator, High Court Madras on 212. 2006.

3. The office of the Official Liquidator of this Court sent a copy of the sale certificate dated 212. 2006 to the office of the respondent to file the same in Book-I as per Section 89 of the Registration Act 1908. However it is seen that after a lapse of more than two years, the respondent sent the impugned dated 27. 2009 demanding a sum of Rs.10,39,122/- which was said to be the deficit stamp duty payable for filing the sale certificate in Book-I as per year 2008 audit objection. Against the said order dated 27. 2009 only, the present writ petition has been filed on the ground that the said communication was issued in contravention of Section 17(2)(Xii) and Section 89 of the Registration Act 1908.

4. Mr.Ramakrishna Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, relied on a judgement of the Honourable Supreme Court in B.Arvindkumar vs. Government of India and others reported in (2008) 5 SCC 745 to state that sale certificate does not require registration. Para 12 of the judgement is extracted hereunder:

"12. The plaintiff has produced the original registered sale certificate dated 28. 1941 executed by the Official Receiver, City Station, Bangalore. The said deed certifies that Bhowrilal (father of the plaintiff) was the highest bidder at an auction-sale held on 28. 1941, in respect of the right, title, interest of the insolvent Anraj Sankla, namely, the leasehold right in the property described in the schedule to the certificate (suit property), that his bid Rs.8350 was accepted and the sale was confirmed by the District Judge, Civil and Military Station, Bangalore on 28. 1941. The sale certificate declared Bhowrilal to be the owner of the leasehold right in respect of the suit property. When a property is sold by public auction in pursuance of an order of the Court and the 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. A sale certificate is issued to the purchaser only when the sale becomes absolute. The sale certificate is merely the evidence of such title. It is well settled that when an auction-purchaser derives title on confirmation of sale in his favour, and a sale certificate is issued evidencing such sale and title, no further deed of transfer from the court is contemplated or required. In this case, the sale certificate itself was registered, though such a sale certificate issued by a court or an officer authorised by the court, does not require registration. Section 17(2) (xii) of the Registration Act, 1908 specifically provides that a certificate of sale granted to any purchaser of any property sold by a public auction by a Civil or Revenue Officer does not fall under the category of non-testamentary documents which require registration under sub-sections (b) and (c) o