Allowed

Sundaram Home Finance Ltd. Formerly Known as Sundaram Bnp Paribas Home Finance Ltd. v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC13 Jul 2021WP(C)/13487/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court held that production of a Record of Rights certificate is not mandatory for registration. The court directed the Village Officer to issue the certificate and the Sub Registrar to register the sale deed without insisting on the certificate.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the 3rd respondent to issue the Record of Rights certificate and the 2nd respondent to register the sale deed without insisting for the production of the RoR certificate.

Sundaram Home Finance Ltd. Formerly Known as Sundaram Bnp… — Property and Title | Kerala HC (2021)

¶1

WP(C) NO. 13487 OF 2021

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V

¶6

TUESDAY, THE 13^TH DAY OF JULY 2021 / 22ND ASHADHA, 1943

¶7

WP(C) NO. 13487 OF 2021

¶8

PETITIONER/S:

¶9

SUNDARAM HOME FINANCE LTD FORMERLY KNOWN AS SUNDARAM BNP PARIBAS HOME FINANCE LTD. SUNDARAM TOWERS, 46, WHITES ROAD, CHENNAI, PIN-600014, REP. BY ITS AUTHORISED OFFICER, MR. ABU ROSHAN ANDREWS, AGED 33 YEARS, S/O. JOSHY CYRIAC.

¶10

BY ADV VARGHESE C.KURIAKOSE

¶11

RESPONDENTS:

¶12

1 STATE OF KERALA REP. BY SECRETARY, DEPT. OF REVENUE, SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM-695001.

¶13

2 THE SUB REGISTRAR, SUB REGISTRY OFFICE, EDAKKARA, MALAPPURAM-679331.

¶14

3 THE VILLAGE OFFICER EDAKKARA VILLAGE OFFICE, EDAKKARA, MALAPPURAM679331.

¶15

4 THE TAHSILDAR, NILAMBUR TALUK, NILAMBUR, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT676542.

¶16

SMT K AMMINIKUTTY, SR GOVERNMENT PLEADER

¶17

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13.07.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

WP(C) NO. 13487 OF 2021

¶19

¶20

JUDGMENT

¶21

The petitioner has approached this Court being aggrieved by the refusal on the part of the 3rd respondent in issuing Record of Rights certificate in respect of an item of property owned by the petitioner. Alternatively, the petitioner has sought for a direction to the 2nd respondent not to insist for production of RoR certificate in view of the law laid down by this Court in Jacob P.C. v. Village Officer, Ernakulam and Another [2020 (4) KHC 167].

¶22

The petitioner states that they are a Housing Finance Institution registered under the Companies Act, 1956. It is contended that one Shaji V. and Deepa V.T availed a housing loan facility for a sum of Rs.11,00,000/- from the petitioner Company by depositing the original title deeds of property having an extent of 13 cents in Sy.No.1279/3 along with a building bearing Door No.MP/6/191A situated in Edakkara Village, Nilambur Taluk in Malappuram District. They committed default and the asset was classified as a non performing one. Proceedings under the SARFAESI Act were initiated and later, the property was sold in strict compliance with the provisions of the Act. Ext.P3 sale certificate was issued in favour of Smt. Sulaikha P.K., W/o Abdul Azeez. For the purpose of registering the sale deed, a certificate under the Kerala Record of Rights Act is necessary. The petitioner in the said circumstances filed Ext.P4 application before the respondents 2 and 3. However, the certificate has not been issued to the petitioner. No reasons were also assigned for non issuance of the certificate. It is in the above circumstances that the petitioner is before this Court seeking directions to the 2nd respondent to cause

¶23

WP(C) NO. 13487 OF 2021

¶24

¶25

registration of Ext.P3 Sale certificate/sale deed without insisting for production of RoR and also a direction to respondent Nos.3 and 4 to issue RoR certificate to the petitioner to enable transfer of ownership of the secured asset.

¶26

I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader.

¶27

Section 10 of the Record of Rights Act, 1968 mandates that certified copies of the entries in the Record of Rights shall be granted by such officer on payment of the requisite fees. Exts.P1 and P2 would reveal that the proceedings were initiated under the SARFAESI Act which has finally culminated in the issuance of Ext.P3 sale certificate in favour of Smt. Sulaikha. In that view of the matter, there is no justification on the part of the 3rd respondent in refusing to issue a Record of Rights as requested by the petitioner. Furthermore, this Court in Synudheen v. State of Kerala [2013 (1) KLT 221] and later in Jacob P.C. v. Village Officer, Ernakulam and Another [2020 (4) KHC 167] has held that production of RoR certificate is only optional and cannot be made mandatory and the registration officials concerned will not have jurisdiction to refuse registration on the mere ground that the party who presents the document has not produced the RoR certificate in respect of the property concerned.

¶28

In that view of the matter, this writ petition is disposed of directing the 3rd respondent to issue the Record of Rights certificate in respect of property covered under Ext.P3 on the petitioner remitting the requisite fees. The entire exercise shall be completed within a period of eight weeks from the date of production of a certified copy of this judgment. Alternatively, the 2nd

¶29

WP(C) NO. 13487 OF 2021

¶30

¶31

respondent is directed to register the sale deed, if it is otherwise in order, without insisting for the production of RoR certificate.

¶32

The petitioner shall produce a copy of the writ petition along with a copy

¶33

of the judgment before the concerned respondent for further action.

¶34

Sd/-

¶35

RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V

¶36

JUDGE

¶37

sru

¶38

WP(C) NO. 13487 OF 2021

¶39

¶40

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 13487/2021

¶41

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶42

Exhibit P1 TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE POSSESSION NOTICE DATED Exhibit P2 TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE SALE NOTICE DATED 5.3.2021.

¶43

Exhibit P3 TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE SALE CERTIFICATE PREPARED IN THE NAME OF SULAIKHA. Exhibit P4 TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 18.6.2021 BEFORE THE 2ND AND 3RD RESPONDENTS. Exhibit P5 TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 10.4.2019 IN WP(C) NO.8819/2019 PASSED BY THIS HONOURABLE COURT.

¶44

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS:

¶45

NIL

Sundaram Home Finance Ltd. Formerly Known as Sundaram Bnp Paribas Home Finance Ltd. v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sundaram Home Finance Ltd. Formerly Known as Sundaram Bnp Paribas Home Finance Ltd. v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The Calicut University Staff Co-Operative Credit Society Limited NO.M-266 Vs the University of Calicut

Yohannan Vs the Thahasildar

K. Nambikumar Vs Village Officer

T.C.Mathew Vs State of Kerala

Ayisha .K.C., Vs the Special Tahsildar (Lr)

Kunjimarakkar, Vs the Special Tahsildar, (Lr)