Disposed¶31

Mohammed Musthafa Saleem v. the Chief Manager / Authorised Officer

Madras HC6 Jan 2026WP/49456/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

WP No. 49456 of 2025; Madras High Court; 06-01-2026; Article 226; writ of mandamus; Canara Bank; auction purchaser paid entire money; sale certificate issued 03.01.2024 lapsed; fresh sale certificate within 15 days; registration under Registration Act; Plot Nos. 14 and 15 Old Survey No. 664/1 Pallikaranai Shollinganallur; physical possession; disposed of; no costs.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition disposed of with directions: (a) respondent Bank to issue a fresh sale certificate after receiving back the earlier one, within 15 days from receipt of a copy of the order; (b) petitioner free to get it registered before the concerned registering authority; (c) registering authority to register it under the Registration Act without further delay. No costs. ¶31

Mohammed Musthafa Saleem Vs the Chief Manager /… — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶31

Issue for consideration

Whether the respondent Bank should be directed to forthwith execute and register a fresh sale certificate in favour of the petitioner for Plot Nos. 14 and 15, Old Survey No. 664/1 (3038 sq. ft.), No. 5/4 Thanthai Periyar Kamaraj Street, Pallikaranai Village, Shollinganallur Taluk, Kancheepuram District, and hand over physical possession of the property.

¶12

Court's answer

Having paid the entire money as successful auction purchaser, the petitioner is entitled to get the sale certificate as well as the sale got executed and registered.

¶19

Ratio / Principle

Direction to the respondent Bank to issue a fresh sale certificate after receiving back the earlier one from the petitioner, within a period of 15 (fifteen) days from the date of receipt of a copy of the order.

¶28

Key takeaways

On receipt of the fresh sale certificate, it is open to the petitioner to get it registered before the concerned registering authority.ratio¶29
The registering authority, on production of the fresh sale certificate issued by the Bank, shall register it under the provisions of the Registration Act without any further delay.ratio¶30

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Judicature at Madras (order made by R.Suresh Kumar J., bench including Shamim Ahmed J.) disposed of WP No. 49456 of 2025, a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by Mohammed Musthafa Saleem, proprietor of M/s Hadith Enterprises, a successful auction purchaser who had paid the entire money, seeking a mandamus directing the respondent Canara Bank officer to execute and register a fresh sale certificate for Plot Nos. 14 and 15, Old Survey No. 664/1 (3038 sq. ft.) at Pallikaranai Village, Shollinganallur Taluk, Kancheepuram District, and hand over physical possession. The Bank submitted that a sale certificate issued on 03.01.2024 had lapsed as the petitioner did not register it within the prescribed time, and expressed willingness to re-issue. The Court held the petitioner entitled to execution and registration of the sale certificate and directed: the Bank to issue a fresh sale certificate after receiving back the earlier one within 15 days of receipt of the order copy; the petitioner to get it registered before the concerned registering authority; and the registering authority to register it under the Registration Act without further delay. No costs.

¶1

WP No. 49456 of 2025

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 06-01-2026

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R. SURESH KUMAR AND

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SHAMIM AHMED WP No. 49456 of 2025

¶7

Mohammed Musthafa Saleem Proprietor M/s Hadith Enterprises, No 31, Perumal Nagar, Thirumudivakkam Chennai 600 044

¶8

..Petitioner

¶9

¶10

The Chief Manager / Authorised Officer Canara Bank Asset Recoery Management Branch, No 770A 8th Floor, Spencer Towers II Building Anna Salai, Chennai 600 002

¶11

..Respondent

¶12

Prayer : Writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for a Writ of Mandamus directing the Respondent to forthwith execute and register a Fresh Sale certificate in favour of the petitioner for the lands bearing Plot Nos. 14 and 15 comprised in Old Survey no 664/1 measuring a total extent of 3038 sq. ft situated at No. 5/4 Thanthai Periyar Kamaraj Street, Pallikaranai Village, Shollinganallur Taluk, Kancheepuram Distrct and hand over physical Possession of the Said property to the petitioner within the time to be stipulated by this Court.

¶13

For Petitioner : Mr.R.Ragavendran For Respondent : Mr.R.Sreedhar Standing Counsel

¶14

__________ Page 1 of 4

¶15

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶16

WP No. 49456 of 2025

¶17

Order (Order of the Court was made by R.Suresh Kumar J.)

¶18

The prayer sought for in this writ petition is for a Writ of Mandamus directing the Respondent to forthwith execute and register a Fresh Sale certificate in favour of the petitioner for the lands bearing Plot Nos. 14 and 15 comprised in Old Survey no 664/1 measuring a total extent of 3038 sq. ft situated at No. 5/4 Thanthai Periyar Kamaraj Street, Pallikaranai Village, Shollinganallur Taluk, Kancheepuram Distrct and hand over physical Possession of the Said property to the petitioner within the time to be stipulated by this Court.

¶19

The petitioner is a successful auction purchaser and he has paid the entire money. Therefore, he is entitled to get the sale certificate as well as the sale got executed and registered. Since the respondent Bank allegedly has not come forward to execute the sale by giving the sale certificate, the petitioner has moved the present writ petition.

¶20

Heard Mr.R.Ragavendran, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.R.Sreedhar, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent Bank.

¶21

Learned Standing Counsel for the respondent Bank, on instructions would submit that, on 03.01.2024 the sale certificate has already been issued and within

¶22

Page 2 of 4

¶23

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶24

WP No. 49456 of 2025

¶25

the prescribed time since the writ petitioner did not get the same registered with the

¶26

concerned registering authority, the same has lapsed, for which the Bank could not be blamed. He further submits that the bank is ready and willing to issue a sale certificate afresh to the petitioner and also to hand over possession to the petitioner.

¶27

In view of the aforesaid circumstances, this writ petition is disposed of with the following directions.

¶28

(a) There shall be a direction to the respondent Bank to issue a fresh sale certificate after receiving back the earlier one from the petitioner, within a period of 15 (fifteen) days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶29

(b) On receipt of such sale certificate, it is open to the petitioner to get it registered before the concerned registering authority.

¶30

(c) The registering authority, on such production of fresh sale certificate to be issued by the bank, shall register the same under the provisions of the Registration Act without any further delay.

¶31

With the above directions, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs.

¶32

(R.S.K.,J.) (S.S.A.,J.) 06-01-2026

¶33

Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No

¶34

KST

¶35

__________ Page 3 of 4

¶36

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶37

WP No. 49456 of 2025

¶38

R.SURESH KUMAR J. AND SHAMIM AHMED J.

¶39

KST

¶40

¶41

The Chief Manager / Authorised Officer Canara Bank Asset Recovery Management Branch, No 770A, 8th Floor, Spencer Towers II Building Anna Salai, Chennai 600 002

¶42

WP No. 49456 of 2025

¶43

06-01-2026

¶44

__________ Page 4 of 4

¶45

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Mohammed Musthafa Saleem v. the Chief Manager / Authorised Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohammed Musthafa Saleem v. the Chief Manager / Authorised Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rahmaniya Jumma Masjid Vs the Tamil Nadu Waqf Board

N. Meena Vs the State

Mohammad Hanif Vs The District Collector

State of Tamil Nadu Vs U. Sathish Kumar

The Secretary to Government Vs Tmt Aarikammal

S.Kalavathy Vs Government of Tamil Nadu