IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 28.03.2022

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.DHANDAPANI

W.P.NO.6724 OF 2022

AND

WMP.NO.6810 OF 2022

State Bank of India

Asset Recovery Management Branch,

No.44, Eldams Road, 1^st Floor,

Teynampet, Chennai 600 018.

rep.by its Chief Manager

... Petitioner

Vs.

1. The Sub Registrar,

Adyar, Chennai 600 020.

2. Mrs.V.S.Navaneetham

3. Smt.A.Sangeetha

... Respondents

PRAYER: The Writ Petition filed under

Section 226 of

Constitution of India, pleased to issue a Writ or direction or

order more particularly in the nature of Writ of Certiorarified

Mandamus Calling for the records of the first respondent namely

refusal check slip No.RFL / Adayar / 48 / 2021 dated 15.12.2021

and quash the same as null and void and consequently to direct

the first respondent to register the sale certificate dated

01.12.2021 issue by the Petitioner bank in favour of auction

purchaser / third respondent.

For Petitioner

:

Mr.M.L.Ganesh

For RR1

:

Mr.Yogesh Kannadasan

Special Government Pleader

O R D E R

Writ Petition has been filed to call for the records

relating to the impugned order of the respondent in Refusal No.

No.RFL / Adayar / 48 / 2021 dated 15.12.2021 and quash the same

as the same is arbitrary, illegal and non-est in the eyes of law

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

and consequently to direct the first respondent to register the

sale certificate dated 01.12.2021 issue by the Petitioner bank

in favour of auction purchaser / third respondent.

2. Since no adverse orders are passed against the

respondents, notice to them is not necessary and this Writ

Petition is disposed of based on the available materials.

3. The case of the petitioner is that M/s.Sri Aparajita

Procons had availed overdraft credit facility from the

petitioner Bank and the 2^nd respondent had offered collateral

security of immovable property of vacant land situated at Old

Door No.26, New Door No.115, Bharathi Avenue, Second Street,

Kottur Village, Mylapore Triplicane Taluk, comprised in

S.F.No.79/5A, T.S.Nos.125, 126 and 127, block No.16, being Plot

No.B, Measuring an extent of 4343 sq.ft, which includes passage

742 sq.ft in favour of the petitioner Bank. Thereafter, the 2^nd

respondent had created an EM with an intention to create

equitable mortgage over the aforesaid property and also executed

MOD on 28.04.2014, to cover the aforesaid loan liability. Since

the 2^nd respondent had derived title and ownership over the

aforesaid property by virtue of family partition, she had

deposited certified copy of partition deed dated 27.03.1992.

Since the borrower had committed default in repaying the loan

amount, the loan account was treated as Non Performing Assets

and after issuance of necessary notices under the SARFAESI Act,

the property was brought for sale in the e-auction and in the e-

auction sale proceedings, the 3^rd respondent was declared as

successful bidder for a total sale price amount of Rs.1.89 crore

and subsequently, the

petitioner Bank had issued sale

certificate on 01.12.2021 in favour of the said auction

purchaser / 3^rd respondent herein. When the said Sale Certificate

was presented for registration before the 1^st respondent, the

same was rejected on the same day by citing that original

partition deed and MOD not produced. Aggrieved by the same, the

present writ petition is filed by the petitioner.

4. Though very many grounds have been raised, learned

counsel for the petitioner submits that though the petitioner

annexed the certified copies of the partition deed and MOD, even

then the respondent refused to register the document is not

sustainable. He further relied upon the decision of this Court

in W.P.(MD)No.19745 of 2020, order dated 11.02.2021, wherein,

even in respect of non-filing of the parent document along with

the