J U D G M E N T

The petitioner says that he is an auction purchaser of the property covered in this writ petition, in a sale conducted by the 3rd respondent - State Bank of India (hereinafter referred to as the Bank for short) and alleges that when he, however, presented the Sale Certificate before respondent No.1, it has been refused to be registered and his request for Transfer of Registry declined saying that there is an attachment over the property effected under the orders of a competent Civil Court.

2. The petitioner asserts that, as is evident from the Encumbrance Certificate produced on record, the attachment in question was effected only on 20.10.2016; while the equitable mortgage over the property made in favour of the Bank, by its original owner, on 22.03.2016. The petitioner, therefore, says that, as has been declared by this Court in several judgments including Exts.P6, P7 and P8, the Registrar cannot refuse to register the document; and consequently, prays that said Authority be directed to do so, within a time frame to be fixed by this Court.

3. I have heard Sri.Jacob K.S, learned counsel for the petitioner; Sri.Tom K. Thomas, learned Standing Counsel for the Bank and Smt.G.Sheeba, learned Government Pleader appearing for the official respondents.

4. Sri.Tom K. Thomas, learned Standing Counsel for the Bank confirmed that the equitable mortgage in favour of his client, by the original owner, was executed on 22.03.2016; while the attachments reflected on the property, as is seen from the Encumbrance Certificate, were all made much thereafter. He, therefore, prayed that this writ petition be allowed as prayed for by the petitioner.

5. The learned Government Pleader - Smt.G.Sheeba, submitted that 2nd respondent has been incapacitated from considering the petitioner's request for Transfer of Registry and for registration of the Sale Certificate solely because of the attachment which he noticed over it, as reflected in the Encumbrance Certificate. She submitted that, therefore, if this Court is inclined to direct him to assess the date of the equitable mortgage and the date of attachment, he will issue appropriate orders on the petitioner's application without any avoidable delay.

6. When I consider the afore submissions, it is indubitable that if the attachment over the property has been effected after the date of equitable mortgage, then certainly, the petitioner's request for registration of his title document and for Transfer of Registry in his favour cannot be refused by respondents 1 and 2.

7. I am, therefore, of the firm view that respondents 1 and

2 must evaluate the petitioner's contentions and take a decision on his application without any avoidable delay.

Resultanty, this writ petition is ordered, with a direction to respondent No.1 to consider the petitioner's application for registration of his document; and with a consequential direction to respondent No.2 to then consider his application for Transfer of Registry and for payment of Land Tax.

The afore exercise shall be completed by the 1st respondent after assessing whether the date of mortgage is prior to the date of attachment and if it is so found, then the petitioner's request shall be granted adverting to Exts.P6 to P8 judgments of this Court and necessary orders thereon shall be issued by the said respondent within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment and consequentially, by the 2nd respondent within a period of two weeks thereafter.

SD/-

DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN JUDGE rp APPENDIX OF WP(C) 17135/2021 PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 NOTARISED COPY OF POWER OF ATTORNEY DATED 26-05-

2016.

Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE SALE CERTIFICATE UNDER RULE 9 (6)

OF THE SARFAESI ACT, DATED 09-07-2021 ISSUED BY THE

3RD RESPONDENT.

Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 22-07-2021 ISSUED BY THE PETITIONER.

Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 27-07-2021 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT.

Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF THE ENCUMBRANCE CERTIFICATE NO 6677/21 DAT