Court clarifies that registration of sale certificates in property auctions is not mandatory, protecting third-party purchasers' rights.

Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to set aside the fair and decreetal order dated 28.08.2025 in unnumbered E.A.No. of 2025 in E.P.No.384 of 1998 in O.S.No.1570 of 1996 on the file of the 1st Additional District Munsif Court, Dindigul on the following amongst the others.

For Petitioner : Mr. H.Lakshmi Shankar, Advocate.

ORDER

This Civil Revision Petition is filed to set aside the fair and decreetal order dated 28.08.2025 in unnumbered E.A.No.--- of 2025 in E.P.No.384 of 1998 in O.S.No.1570 of 1996 on the file of the 1st Additional District Munsif Court, Dindigul on the following amongst the others.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner had purchased the property in a Court auction of which sale was confirmed on 30.09.2005. An application for delivery was taken and the same was returned on the ground that the legal heirs of the third respondent were not impleaded in the main Execution Petition. The same was challenged by the petitioner in CRP(MD)No.1160 of 2009 and this Court by order dated 09.04.2015 allowed the said revision by setting aside the order and remitting it back for reconsideration permitting the petitioner to file an application to implead the legal heirs of the deceased third respondent. Thereafter, the legal heirs of the third respondent were made parties and again the unnumbered delivery application had been returned stating that the sale certificate appears to have not been registered and that the proof to the effect that the respondents 9 to 12 and 13 and 14 are the legal heirs of the 4th and 8th respondent respectively. A compliance report was filed. But however, again on 28.08.2025, the application was returned reiterating as to how the same would be maintainable without registering the sale certificate, encumberance certificate to be annexed and also to state as to how the sixth defendant is dead and what steps have been taken to bring on record the legal representatives of the sixth respondent. He would submit that the sale certificate issued by a Court need not be registered and to that he had also relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court reported in 2024 SCC online 3372 in the case of The State of Punjab and another Vs Ferrous Alloy Forgings Pvt. Ltd & Others and a judgment of the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in W.A(MD)No.1604 of 2024 dated 24.09.2024. As regards the legal representative, he would submit that the petitioner being a third party would not be in a position to produce the legal heir certificate.

3. With the information obtained, the petitioner has impleaded the legal heirs of the deceased respondent and therefore only after notice is being served upon them, the same could be ascertained. Hence he would submit that return as made by the Court below, causes great prejudice to the petitioner as the petitioner was the purchaser of the suit property. The petitioner who purchased the suit property in the year 2005 has been put to irreparable loss, hence he seeks indulgence of this Court.

4. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel appearing on either side and perused the material available on record.

5. The Court below had made the following returns on 28.08.2025:

"1/Vyr;rhd;wpjH; gjpt[ bra;ag;glhj epiyapy; ,k;kD vt;thW epiyf;fjj; f;fJ>

2/ mtt; hW Vyr;rhd;wpjH;

gjpt[ bra;ag;gl;oUe;jhy; mjwf; hd tpy;y'f;

rhd;wpjiH ,izj;J jhff; y; bra;at[k;/

3/ 6k; vjph;kDjhuh; gHdpr;rhkp ,wg;g[ vdf;

Fwpg;gpl;Lss; J vt;thW>

4/ mt;thW 6k; vjph;kDjhuh;

gHdpr;rhkp ,we;jpUf;Fk;gl;rjj; py; mtuJ thhpRfis nrh;g;gjwf; hf vLf;fg;gl;l eltof;iffs; vdb; ddd;

vd;gij tpsff; t[k;/"

6. A perusal of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court relied upon by the petitioner would indicate that a sale