THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 30.07.2024 CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUBRAMANIAN AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SAKTHIVEL W.A.No.3412 of 2023 Dr.M.N.Sadasivam ... Appellant Vs.

1.The Inspector General of Registration, 100, Santhome High Road, Mylapore, Chennai – 600 004.

2.The Sub-Registrar, Anna Nagar, Chennai – 600 040.

3.Asset Reconstruction Company (India) Limited, The Ruby, 10th Floor, 29, Senapati Bapat Marg, Dadar (West), Mumbai – 400 028.

... Respondents Prayer : Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, to set aside the order dated 08.09.2023 made in W.P.No.25363 of 2023 and allow this writ appeal.

For Appellant : Mr.A.S.Balaji For Respondents 1 : Mr.Ramanlal, & 2 Additional Advocate General Assisted by Mr.L.S.M.Hasan Fizal, Additional Government Pleader For 3^rd respondent : Mr.Abitha Banu *********

J U D G M E N T

(Judgment of the Court was made by R.SUBRAMANIAN, J.

The petitioner is aggrieved by the dismissal of his writ petition in W.P.No.25363 of 2023 seeking a Writ of Mandamus directing the 2^nd respondent to file the sale certificate under Section 89(4) of the Registration Act.

2. The petitioner claimed that he had taken part in the public auction (e-auction) of the properties that was held pursuant to the public notice dated 27.12.2022. He being the successful bidder, the authorized officer issued sale certificate in his favour on 20.02.2023. The sale certificate reveals that there are other encumbrances and the sale itself is subject to those encumbrances. Upon presentation of the said sale certificate, the Registering Officer did not register the same, hence, the petitioner sought for a Mandamus as above.

3. The learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition on a conclusion that the Registrar has power to refuse to file the sale certificate, since there was violation of Section 22-B of the Registration Act. The learned Judge also referred to Rule 9(6) and 9(10) of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002 framed under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002.

4. We have heard Mr.A.S.Balaji, learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Mr.Ramanlal, learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the respondents.

5. Mr.A.S.Balaji, learned counsel appearing for the appellant would vehemently contend that the learned Judge mistook the scope of Section 89(4) of the Registration Act and construed it as a registration. Therefore, he invoked Section 22-B of the Registration Act and held that the Registrar has power to refuse to file the instrument under Section 89(4) of the Registration Act. According to him, the reference made by the writ Court to the provisions of Rule 9(6) and 9(10) of the Security Interest (Enforcement)

Rules, 2002 is also beyond the scope of the very writ petition.

6. Contending contra Mr.Ramanlal, learned Additional Advocate General would submit that Section 22-B of the Registration Act could be invoked in a case of filing under Section 89(4) of the Registration Act also. He would also further submit that sub-Rule (10) of Rule 9 of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002, which reads as follows:-

(10) The certificate of sale issued under sub-rule (6) shall specifically mention that whether the purchaser has purchased the immovable secured asset free from any encumbrances known to the secured creditor or not.

mandates the Registrar to specifically mention regarding the encumbrances and in the absence of any mentioning, the Registrar will be justified in refusing to file the sale certificate under Section 89(4) of the Registration Act.

7. We have considered the rival submissions.

8. Section 89(4) of the Registration Act imposes an obligation on the Registrar to file a sale certificate when it is sent to him by the Authorized Officer or the Revenue Officer or produced before him. It has been the consistent view of this Court as well as the Hon'ble Supreme Court that such sale certificate does n