JUDGMENT :

(Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the first respondent to file the copy of Sale Certificate No.19/2012 (DRT No.260/2001) dated 01.08.2012, issued by the second respondent in favour of the petitioner, in Book No.1, maintained in the office of the second respondent by making necessary entries therein as per communication dated 01.08.2012 issued by the second respondent to the first respondent.)

1. The relief sought for in the present writ petition is to direct the first respondent to file the copy of Sale Certificate No.19/2012 (DRT No.260/2001) dated 01.08.2012, issued by the second respondent in favour of the petitioner, in Book No.1, maintained in the office of the second respondent by making necessary entries therein as per communication dated 01.08.2012 issued by the second respondent to the first respondent.

2. The grievance of the petitioner is that an application in O.A.No.702 of 1998 was filed before the Debts Recovery Tribunal No.I, Chennai and it was ordered. The Recovery Certificate in No.166 of 2000 was issued on 26.05.2000 in O.A.No.702 of 1998 relating to Plot No.127, measuring n extent 4,140 sq. ft., in Survey No.1/1A, Thanigai Nagar, Sadayankuppam Village.

3. The petitioner states that the Sale Certificate is not registered by the Sub Registrar, despite the fact that decree was passed by the Competent Forum. Thus, the petitioner is constrained to move the present writ petition.

4. Under Section 17(2)(xii) of the Registration Act, the Registration of Sale Certificate is an option and it is not compulsory. In such circumstances, the Sale Certificate cannot be equated with the other documents, which is to be registered compulsorily.

5. In this regard, the legal principles are settled in the case of Cenney Hotels Pvt Ltd., through its Managing Director S.Venkatesh vs. State of Tamil Nadu represented by Inspector General of Registration, Santhome, Chennai-600 004 and others [2010 (4) CTC 802], wherein this Court, in paragraph-14, observed as under:-

“14. A reading of the above judgment would reveal that the purchaser of a property by sale through Civil or Revenue Court has no disadvantage because of lack of registration in view of the fact that under Section 17(2)(xii) of the Registration Act, Certificate of Sale is not a compulsory registrable document and consequently, the transfer of title in his favour will not be vitiated by non-registration. But so far as the certificate issued by the Authorised Officer is concerned, it cannot be equated with the certificate issued by the Revenue or Civil Court. As contended by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner, the nomenclature given to the document issued by the Authorised Officer may not be relevant for giving exemption from paying the stamp duty since the Sale Certificate issued by the Authorised Officer will not be covered by Article 18 of Schedule I of the Stamp Act. In my considered opinion, the judgment delivered by this Court in In Re, The Official Liquidator, High Court, Madras, 2010 (2) CTC 113 by considering the earlier judgments, has set forth the correct position of law. In view of the above, I do not find any infirmity in the order passed by the 1st Respondent.

In fine, the Writ Petition fails and the same is dismissed. Consequently, connected M.P. is closed.”

6. Section 89(4) of the Registration Act also would not apply in view of the fact that the Recovery Officer of the Debts Recovery Tribunal cannot be considered as a Competent Authority/Revenue Officer for the purpose of forwarding the Sale Certificate for registration by the Sub Registrar concerned. Thus, the sale by the Recovery Officer of the Debts Recovery Tribunal is unconnected with the Sale Certificate, which is to be forwarded by the Revenue Authority to the Sub Registrar.

7. Article 23 of the Indian Stamp Act, deals with conveyance and the said provision would be applicable in respect of th