Back
2024 Supreme(Online)(MAD) 15834
HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
Honourable Mr Justice R. SUBRAMANIAN
Dr.M.N.Sadasivam – Appellant
Versus
The Inspector General of Registration – Respondent
A sale certificate under Section 89(4) of the Registration Act is not subject to registration requirements, emphasizing the distinction between filing and registration.
Headnote:
Mandamus - Writ Petition - Registration Act - Sections 22-B, 89(4) - The court clarified the obligations of the Registrar concerning the filing of sale certificates, distinguishing between registration and mere filing, thereby influencing the outcome in favor of the petitioner.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought a Writ of Mandamus to direct filing of a sale certificate under Section 89(4) of the Registration Act after being a successful bidder in an e-auction. The registrar refused to file due to purported violations of encumbrance rules.
Issues: Whether a sale certificate under Section 89(4) of the Registration Act requires registration when it has been issued with appropriate acknowledgment of existing encumbrances.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the registration of a sale certificate is not required under the Act since it is not a conveyance but a transfer by operation of law.
Final Decision: The order of the learned Single Judge is set aside; the writ appeal is allowed.
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 2nd 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 and held that the Registrar has power to refuse to file the instrument under Section 89(4) of the . 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 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 not amount to conveyance and it is not a compulsorily registrable instrument under the . Recently in Inspector General of Registration and another Vs. G.Madhurambal and another reported in 2022 SCC OnLine SC 2079, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as follows:-
1. Learned counsel for the petitioner(s) has made a valiant endeavour to persuade us to interfere with the impugned judgment(s) but not successfully. It is logically so as this issue has been repeatedly settled and if one may say, a consistent view followed for the last 150 years. We may refer to the judgments by the Madras High Court in the Board of Revenue No. 2 of 1875 (In Re : Case Referred) dated 19.10.1875 opining that a certificate of sale cannot be regarded as a conveyance subject to stamp duty, by the Allahabad High Court in Adit Ram v. Masarat-un-Nissa reported in 1883 SCC OnLine All 116 opining that a sale certificat
