Allowed

Sajad v. the Sub Registrar, Sub Registry Office

Kerala HC7 Dec 2010WP(C)/7798/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court directed the Sub Registrar to register a sale certificate and effect mutation of property sold in an auction under the SARFAESI Act, held highest by the Respondents, brushing aside earlier attachment claims that were not challenged. The refusal to register was quashed and relief granted subject to validity of the certificate.

What did the court decide?

Directed the Sub Registrar to register the sale certificate upon production and to effect mutation in revenue records.

Sajad Vs the Sub Registrar, Sub Registry Office — Property and Title | Kerala HC (2010)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 7TH DECEMBER 2010 / 16TH AGRAHAYANA 1932

¶5

WP(C).No. 7798 of 2010(Y)

¶6

------------------------PETITIONER(S):

¶7

-----------------------

¶8

1. SAJAD, S/O.SHAHUL HAMEED, AGED 42 YEARS, RESIDING AT T.C.1907 (60/1031), 39, CHALAI, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶9

2. THE HOUSING DEVELOPMENT FINANCE CORPORATION LIMITED, H.D.F.C. HOUSE P.B.NO.2288, VAZHUTHAKKAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORISED OFFICER.

¶10

BY ADV. SRI.K.K.CHANDRAN PILLAI

¶11

SRI.A.S.SAJUSH PAUL SRI.THOMAS JAMES MUNDACKAL SRI.BOBBY THOMAS

¶12

RESPONDENT(S):

¶13

------------------------

¶14

1. THE SUB REGISTRAR, SUB-REGISTRY OFFICE BALARAMAPURAM, NEYYATTINKARA.

¶15

2. THE VILLAGE OFFICER,

¶16

PALLICHAL VILLAGE, PALLICHAL, NEYYATTINKARA.

¶17

3. THE TAHSILDAR, TALUK OFFICE, NEYYATTINKARA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT.

¶18

4. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE

¶19

CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶20

5. MR.SUDEVAKUMARAN NAIR, KADAKKARATHALA, `PUNARTHAM', PALLICHAL P.O., NARUVAMOODU, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶21

6. MANOHARAN, `NISHA SADAN', PALLICHAL P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶22

Respondent No.6 deleted from the party array as per order in I.A.No.13094/10 dated 4.10.10.

¶23

Addl.R6. MANOHARAN, 'NISHA SADAN', PALLICHAL P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶24

Additional R6 impleaded as per order in I.A.No.14326/10 dated 13.10.10.

¶25

GOVERNMENT PLEADER MR.DILIP MOHAN

¶26

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 07/12/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶27

jvt

¶28

WP(C).No. 7798 of 2010

¶29

APPENDIX

¶30

Petitioner's Exhibits :-

¶31

Ext.P1	:- Copy of sale deed dated 11.7.2007 of the Sub-Registry Office Balaramapuram.
Ext.P2	:- Copy of possession notice served on Pankajakshi Amma dated 12.10.09.
Ext.P3	:- Copy of communication dated 7.12.2009 issued to the 1^stpetitioner.
Ext.P4	:- Copy of receipt evidencing taking possession of the property by the 1^st petitioner dated 12.12.2009.
Ext.P5	:- Copy of Encumbrance Certificate dated 8.12.2009 taken from the Sub- Registry Office, Balaramapuram.
Ext.P6	:- Copy of document showing the date of creation of mortgage in favour of the 2^ndpetitioner dated 27.7.2007.

¶32

Respondent's Exhibits :- NIL

¶33

//True Copy//

¶34

P.A. to Judge

¶35

W.P.(C).No. 7798 OF 2010

¶36

ANTONY DOMINIC, J

¶37

Dated this the 7^th day of December, 2010

¶38

JUDGMENT

¶39

The 2^nd petitioner, extended credit facility to late Suresh and his wife K.Padmakumari Amma for the purchase of 4.60 Ares of property in RS.No.133/24 in Block No.4 (old Sy.No.226/10) of Pallichal Village in Neyyattinkara Taluk. The mortgage was created during July 2007. Default was committed. As a result, the 2^nd respondent initiated proceedings under the Securitization And Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI ACT) . Property was taken over and was finally sold in auction, in which the 1^st petitioner who had offered Rs.12,40,000/- was the highest bidder. Accordingly, the sale was confirmed in his favour and sale certificate was issued and possession was also handed over to him. However, when the sale certificate was presented for registration to the 1^st respondent along with an application for getting the property mutated, that was refused to be accepted for the reason that respondents 5 and 6 had obtained attachment over the mortgaged property by filing Civil Suits before the Sub Court,

¶40

W.P.(C).No. 7798 OF 2010

¶41

¶42

Neyyattinkara, which encumbrances are also shown in Ext.P5 Encumbrance Certificate. It is thereupon, this writ petition has been filed, praying to direct the 1^st respondent to register the sale certificate of the property when presented for registration and to effect mutation in the revenue records.

¶43

Although, notice was served on respondents 5 and 6, there is no appearance on their behalf.

¶44

Evidently, the property mentioned above along with the building therein was mortgaged to the 2^nd petitioner bank in July 2007. It was during the subsistence of the mortgage, attachment was obtained by respondents 5 and 6, during 2008 and 2009. Respondents have not challenged the sale conducted by the authorized officer and by any other process known to law. If that be so, claim of respondents 5 and 6 can at best be for surplus in the sale proceedings, which is also stated to be absent.

¶45

Irrespective of any such claim, as at present sale in favour of the 1^st petitioner has resulted in a sale certificate and if such a certificate is presented before the 1^st respondent, it is liable to be registered. Therefore, the refusal of the 1^st respondent to register the sale certificate pertaining to the

¶46

W.P.(C).No. 7798 OF 2010

¶47

¶48

property mentioned in Ext.P1 cannot be upheld and in that view of the matter I dispose of this writ petition directing that on the production of the sale certificate pertaining to the property mentioned in Ext.P1, the same shall be accepted for registration provided it is otherwise valid in all respects. Necessarily, application if any made by the 1^st petitioner for mutation will also be dealt with in accordance with the provisions of the Transfer of Registry Rules.

¶49

Petitioner to produce a copy of this judgment before the 1^st respondent for compliance.

¶50

ANTONY DOMINIC JUDGE

¶51

dmb

Sajad v. the Sub Registrar, Sub Registry Office

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sajad v. the Sub Registrar, Sub Registry Office

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mahamood Haji Vs the State of Kerala

Abbas Vs the Ottappalam Municipality

Ajay Kumar Vs the Vice Chancellor,M.G.University

K.G.Johnson Vs Bhaskaran

Jeevan J.Nath Vs N.Nagaraju

K.J.Cleatus Vs Mr.Mohanthi IAS