ORDER :

The petitioner seeks for a Mandamus to direct the 2nd respondent to return the assignment agreement dated 28.02.2007 taken on file in Document No.P59/2007 duly registered to the petitioner.

2. The case of the petitioner is as follows:

The petitioner Company had acquired debt due in the NPA account of another Company, viz., M/s. Ram Super Leather Ltd., from State Bank of Mauritius Ltd. It is stated that the petitioner had acquired the debts by way of assignment of debt along with right and title in the financial documents. The said assignment of debt was carried out by entering into an assignment agreement dated 28.02.20107. On execution of such assignment agreement, the petitioner had paid the stamp duty of Rs.1 lakh and also presented the said document for registration before the 2nd respondent on 06.07.2007. The 2nd respondent, on receipt of the said document, collected the registration fee of Rs.20,000/- and assigned Pending No.P59/2007. The registration process was completed on 06.07.2007 and the petitioner paid the required registration fee of Rs.20,000/- as well. However, the 2nd respondent, without registering the document is keeping the same pending only on the reason that there are some subsisting attachments of the properties referred to in the assignment agreement. Hence, the present writ petition is filed with the relief as stated supra.

3. A counter affidavit is filed by the 2nd respondent wherein it is stated as follows:

The assignment agreement was made in respect of the property situated in Kuniyamuthur Village in addition to the property lying within the jurisdiction of the 2nd respondent. Hence, the Joint Sub Registrar-II, Coimbatore, was requested to inform whether there is any impediment in registering the assignment deed comprising the properties of kuniyamuthur Village mentioned therein. The Joint Sub-Registrar-II, Coimbatore, informed that two attachments dated 10.09.2004 and 29.12.2004 made by the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Coimbatore against Kuniyamuthur Village properties, are subsisting. As the subsisting attachments are considered as impediment for registering the assignment deed, the document is kept pending for satisfaction or raising of attachments.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the 2nd respondent is not justified in refusing to register the document and release the same to the petitioner only on the reason that there are subsisting attachments against the properties referred to in the said document. In support of his contention the learned counsel relied on a recent decision of this Court made in W.P.No.10647/2017 dated 13.12.2018 made in Sundaram BNP Paribas Home Finance Limited vs. The Sub-Registrar, Neelankarai.

5. On the other hand, the learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents reiterated the contentions raised in the counter affidavit.

6. Heard both sides.

7. The only question arises in this case for consideration is as to whether the 2nd respondent is justified in refusing to register the assignment deed on the ground that some of the subject matter properties of the assignment deed are under attachments as stated supra.

8. The above issue involved in this case is no more res integra in view of the fact that the very same issue was already considered by this Court and decided against the registering authority in a decision made in W.P.No.10647/2007 dated 13.10.2018. In fact, this Court, while passing the said order, followed the order passed in W.P.(MD).No.2632/2012 dated 13.03.2013, which in turn, followed the decision of the Apex Court reported in 1985 (2) SCC 167 (Balkrishan Gupta v. Swadeshi Polytex Limited). Paragraph Nos. 7 and 8 of the said order reads as follows:

7. The point for consideration in this writ petition is whether the respondent is entitled to refuse registration of the sale deed on the ground that the subject matter properties of the sale deed are under Court attachment. The very same issue was considered by this Court in