Back
2025 Supreme(Telangana) 1682
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
K. Sarath, J.
Hinduja Housing Finance Ltd. - Appellant
Vs.
The State of Telangana - Respondent
Writ Petition No.16004 of 2025
Decided On : 14-11-2025
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Vikram Ragi
For the Respondent: GP For Stamps And Registration
The provisions of the SARFAESI Act obligate the Sub-Registrar to register a sale certificate despite attachment orders from civil courts, affirming the Act's supremacy in secured transactions.
Headnote:(A) SARFAESI Act, 2002 - The action of the Sub-Registrar in not deleting mortgage property from the prohibitory list is deemed illegal due to provisions under the SARFAESI Act allowing auction without jurisdictional attachment by civil courts. Orders from prior judgments reinforce this position. (Paras 9-13)
(B) Jurisdiction of Civil Courts - Civil Courts have no jurisdiction over matters concerning the SARFAESI Act, and thus attachment orders do not impede registration of sale certificates. (Paras 10-12)
Facts of the case:
Petitioner challenges the Sub-Registrar's refusal to remove the property from prohibitory list after it was auctioned due to prior mortgage default, impacting auction participation. (Paras 4-6)
Findings of Court:
Respondent No.3 must register the sale certificate as per SARFAESI Act; attachment order from civil court does not apply to the auction process. (Paras 12-13)
Issues: Whether the Sub-Registrar is mandated to delete the property from prohibitory list based on SARFAESI Act in light of civil court attachment orders? (Paras 3, 9)
Ratio Decidendi: The authority to register a sale certificate under the SARFAESI Act supersedes civil court attachment orders, confirming jurisdictional limitations on Civil Courts in matters relating to secured creditors. (Paras 10-12)
Result: Writ petition allowed, directing registration of sale certificate.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. notice deemed served to respondents 4 & 5. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. petitioner’s claim against respondent 3’s actions. (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 3. arguments from respondents concerning jurisdiction. (Para 8) |
| 4. court's adherence to previous rulings. (Para 9 , 10 , 11 , 12) |
| 5. writ petition disposed; sale certificate registration ordered. (Para 13 , 14) |
ORDER :
K.Sarath, J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Stamps and Registration appearing for the respondent Nos.1 to 3 and Sri P. Durga Prasad, learned counsel for the respondent No.6 and perused the material on record.
2. The personal notice sent to the respondent Nos.4 and 5 was returned with an endorsement that ‘addressee left without instructions’ and in view of the same, service of notice sent to the respondent Nos.4 and 5 deemed to be served.
3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is questioning the action of the respondent No.3 in not deleting the subject mortgage property i.e., house property bearing H.No.16-174/1 in Plot No.21/Part in Sy.Nos.49, 50 and 51/A admeasuring 70.0 sq. yards situated at Brahmangari Veedhi, Wanaparthy Town and District from the prohibitory list as illegal and arbitrary and consequently direct the respondent No.3 to delete the subject mortgage property from the prohibitory list and register the sale deed in favour of the successful bidder.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the respondent Nos.4 and 5 have obtained housing loan of an amount of Rs.12,50,000/- vide Customer ID:AP/HDB/MBNR/A000000129 Sanction Letter dated 30.04.2017 from the petitioner Company by mortgaging the subject house property of the respondent No.5 by way of registered Memorandum of Deposit of Title Deed vide Doc.No.6496/2017 dated 09.06.2017 registered in the office of the Sub-Registrar, Wanaparthy.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that in view of default in payment, the petitioner- Company initiated proceedings under provisions of Section 14 of SARFAESI Act and took over the possession of the property and later the petitioner- Company brought the mortgaged property for auction by way of paper publication mentioning the date of auction on 25.11.2024. As the subject property is reflected in prohibitory list of the Sub-Registrar, Wanaparthy, the interested buyers did not participate in the auction and withdrawn from auction. He further submits that the respondent No.6 filed ARB No.191/2021 before the Deputy Registrar of Chits/Arbitrator, Mahabubnagar against one Md. Chand Pash and others for claim of Rs.15,29,962/- and the Deputy Registrar of Chits/Arbitrator, Mahabubnagar, has passed order in I.A.No.19/2021 in ARB No.191 of 2021 attaching the subject mortgage property of the respondent No.5, who is the respondent No.6 in ARB No.191 of 2021, and directed the respondent No.3 to enter the same in EC DATA and pursuant the said orders, the subject mortgaged property was incorporated in the prohibitory list.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the action of respondent No.3 is contrary to the Orders passed by this Court in City Union Bank Limited Vs Sub Registrar, Peddapalli and Ors. ,2018 (5) ALT 279 and the same is followed by another Division Bench of this Court in W.P.No.38125 of 2018 dated 14.10.2019 and requested to direct the respondent No.3 to register the sale deed to be issued in favour of the successful bidder. 7. On the other hand, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Stamps and Registration submits that as per the orders of the Deputy Registrar of Chits/Arbitrator, Mahabubanagar in I.A.No.19 of 2021 in ARB No.191 of 2021 dated 10.08.2021, the respondents herein have entered the subject property in prohibitory list and in view of the provisions of the Registration Act, 1908, the respondent No.3- The Sub-Registrar, Wanaparthy is not empowered to delete the subject property from the prohibitory list and requested to dismiss the writ
