Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Canara Bank vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh on 4 February, 2026
Author: Cheekati Manavendranath Roy
Bench: Cheekati Manavendranath Roy
1
APHC010260032025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI [3558]
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
WEDNESDAY,THE FOURTH DAY OF FEBRUARY
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TUHIN KUMAR GEDELA
WRIT PETITION NO: 13040/2025
WRIT PETITION NO: 13048/2025
AND
WRIT PETITION NO: 24428/2025
WRIT PETITION NO: 13040/2025:
Between:
1. CANARA BANK,, RAJANAGARAM BRANCH, SY NO 170/4, MAIN
ROAD, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH REP BY
ITS AUTHORIZED OFFICER, SANJEEV KUMAR DOMA, S/O.
NIDANAM DOMA, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS
...PETITIONER
AND
1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL
SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT (REGISTRATION AND
STAMPS), SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR
DISTRICT.
2. THE COMMISSIONER AND INSPECTOR GENERAL, REGISTRATION
AND STAMPS DEPT., ANDHRA PRADESH.
3. THE DISTRICT REGISTRAR, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT,
RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM.
2
4. THE JOINT SUBREGISTRAR, RAJANAGARAM SRO, EAST
GODAVARI DISTRICT.
5. PEDAGADI RAVI SHANKAR, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, RESIDENT
OF -N 4-10-2/301, PLOT NO 180 SREE KAMESHWARI NILAYAM,
FLAT NO 301, STREET NO 7 HMT NAGAR, NEAR
VENKATESHWARA TEMPLE
...RESPONDENT(S):
Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the
circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be
pleased topleased issue a writ, order or direction, more particularly, one in the
nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the 4th Respondent while
declaring the residential property admeasuring a total extent of 169.31 Sq.
Yards comprising of two different items, of RCC roofed residential building in
RS No 160/3, Nearest Door No 5-12, in Rajanagaram Village, Rajanagaram
Mandal, Rajanagaram SRO limits. East Godavari District, Andhra Pradesh in
list of prohibited properties, as illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional and contrary
to the provisions laid down in SARFAESI Act 2002 and rules made therein
and consequently praying this Hon'ble Court, to direct the 4th Respondent to
process, register and release the Sale Certificate dt. 20.02.2025 infavour of
5th Respondent, issued by the petitioner bank
IA NO: 1 OF 2025
Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated
in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased
Pleased to set aside the impugned temporary injunction orders, dt.
03.12.2024, passed by 4th AddI Junior Civil Judge Court, at
Rajamahendravaram, in lA No: 293/2024 in OS 653/2024 pending disposal of
the above writ petition
Counsel for the Petitioner:
1. SREEDHAR VALIVETI
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. GP FOR REGISTRATION AND STAMPS
3
WRIT PETITION NO: 13048/2025:
Between:
1. CANARA BANK, RAJANAGARAM BRANCH, SY NO 170/4, MAIN
ROAD, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH REP BY
ITS AUTHORIZED OFFICER, SANJEEV KUMAR DOMA, S/O.
NIDANAM DOMA, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS
...PETITIONER
AND
1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL
SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT REGISTRATION STAMPS,
SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT.
2. THE COMMISSIONER INSPECTOR GENERAL, . REGISTRATION
STAMPS DEPT., ANDHRA PRADESH.
3. THE DISTRICT REGISTRAR, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT,
RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM.
4. THE JOINT SUBREGISTRARB, . RAJANAGARAM SRO, EAST
GODAVARI DISTRICT.
5. PEDAGADI RAVI SHANKAR, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, RESIDENT
OF 4-10-2/301, PLOT NO 180 SREE KAMESHWARI NILAYAM,
FLAT NO 301, STREET NO 7 HMT NAGAR, NHMT COMMUNITY
HALL, NACHARAM, VTC UPPAL, RANGAREDDY DISTRICT,
TELANGANA - 500076. EAR VENKATESHWARA TEMPLE
...RESPONDENT(S):
Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the
circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be
pleased toPleased issue a writ, order or direction, more particularly, one in
the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the 4th Respondent
while declaring the residential property admeasuring a total extent of 169.31
Sq. Yards comprising of two different items, of RCC roofed residential
building in RS No 160/3, Nearest Door No 5-12, in Rajanagaram Village,
Rajanagaram Mandal, Rajanagaram SRO limits, East Godavari District,
Andhra Pradesh in list of prohibited properties, as illegal, arbitrary,
4
unconstitutional and contrary to the provisions laid down in SARFAESI Act
2002 and rules made therein and consequently praying this Honble Court, to
direct the 4th Respondent to process, register and release the Sale
Certificate dt. 20.02.2025 infavour of 5th Respondent, issued by the petitioner
bank and to pass
IA NO: 1 OF 2025
Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated
in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased
Pleased to set a side the impugned temporary injunction orders, dt.
19.06.2024, passed by 1st AddI Junior Civil Judge Court, at
Rajamahendravaram, in lA No 264/2024 in OS 386/2024 pending disposal of
the above writ petition and to pass
Counsel for the Petitioner:
1. SREEDHAR VALIVETI
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. GP FOR REGISTRATION AND STAMPS
WRIT PETITION NO: 24428/2025:
Between:
1. IKF FINANCE LIMITED, D. NO. 40-1-44, CORPORATE CENTRE,
M.G. ROAD, VIJAYAWADA - 520010, A.P.REP. BY ITS AUTHORIZED
OFFICER DESABOYINA SINIVASA RAO, S/O VENKATESWARA
RAO, AGE 54 YEARS. CHIEF LEGAL MANAGER OF THE
PETITIONERS COMPANY, WORKING AT IKF FINANCE LTD, D. NO.
40-1-144,CORPORATE CENTRE, MG ROAD, VIJAYAWADA,
5200100,
...PETITIONER
AND
1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY THE SECRETARY,
STAMPS AND REGISTRATION, SECRETARIAT, VELANGAPUDI,
ANDHRA PRADESH
2. THE JOINT SUB REGISTRARIR O CHITTOOR, REGISTRATION AND
5
STAMPS DEPARTMENT CHITTOOR DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH
- 517002
3. M/S SRI VINAY HOME COLLECTION, (GST REGISTRATION NO.
37AIYPR5566L1Z0) D.NO.- 11/436, OTK STREET, CHITTOOR,
ANDHRA PRADESH, 517001 REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR
MRS. R. SRIPRIYA
4. R SRIPRIYA, W/O V.N. RAJASEKHAR D. NO. 11/436, OTK STREET,
CHITTOOR ANDHRA PRADESH - 517001
5. V N RAJASEKHAR, S/O NARASIMHULU AGED 66 RESIDENT OF24-
72//2, LAKSHMI NAGAR COLONY, PRIYA RAJU NILAYAM,
KONGAREDDY PALLI, CHITTOOR, ANDHRA PRADESH - 517001
6. A YASHODA CHARI, S/O. A.RAJA CHARI, D.NO.8-228 BRAMHIN
STREET, CHITTOOR -517001.
7. M KESAVAN, S/O. MUTHU SWAMY, D.NO. 32-306/1 ,ONTILLU,
MURKAMBATTU POST, CHITTOOR TOWN AND MANDAL, PIN-
517127.
8. M/S GJM ESTATES HOLDINGS, REPRESENTED BY ITS PARTNER
MR. G.C. JAGAN MOHAN S/O. G CHENNAKESHAVULU NAIDU,
PRESENTLY HAVING OFFICE AT 58, DODSWORTH LAYOUT, OPP
CASA GOPALAN APARTMENT, BOREWELL ROAD, WHITEFIEID,
BANGALORE, KARNATAKA - 560066
...RESPONDENT(S):
Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the
circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be
pleased topleased to a) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate
writ, order, or direction declaring the action of Respondent No. 2 - Joint Sub-
Registrar, Chittoor, in including the scheduled properties in the list of
prohibited properties, as illegal, arbitrary, without jurisdiction, and violative of
Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India b) Issue a writ of
mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order, or direction declaring the
action of the Respondent No. 2 - Joint Sub- Registrar, Chittoor, in not
registering the sale certificate dated 16/02/2024 as illegal, arbitrary, without
jurisdiction, and violative of Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of
India c) Direct the Respondent No. 2 - Joint Sub-Registrar, Chittoor, to
6
forthwith accept and register the sale certificate dated 16/02/2024 executed
by the Petitioner Company in respect of the Schedule mentioned property,
pursuant to the exercise of powers under the SARFAESI Act, without
reference to or reliance upon the subsequent civil court attachment in O.S.
No. 673 and 675 of 2021 or any other subsequent claim d) Direct that the
attachment order passed in O.S. No. 673 and 675 of 2021 by the Court of the
Learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, being subsequent to the mortgage
created in favour of the Petitioner, does not affect or override the Petitioners
rights as a prior secured creditor Pass
IA NO: 1 OF 2025
Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated
in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased
pleased to:Direct the Respondent No. 2 - Joint Sub-Registrar, Chittoor, to
forthwith accept and register the sale certificate executed by the Petitioner
Company in respect of the Schedule mentioned property, pursuant to the
exercise of powers under the SARFAESI Act, without reference to or reliance
upon the subsequent civil court attachment in O.S. No. 673& 675 of 2021 or
any other subsequent claim pending disposal of the Writ Petition
IA NO: 2 OF 2025
Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated
in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased
may be pleased to: Permit the Petitioner to effect substituted service by way
of Newspaper publication upon Respondent Nos.3 to 5 in a newspaper
having wide circulation in the respective area as per the last known address.
Pass
Counsel for the Petitioner:
1. TAGORE YADAV YARAGORLA
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. GP FOR REGISTRATION AND STAMPS
7
The Court made the following:
COMMON ORDER:- (Per Hon'ble Sri Justice Cheekati Manavendranath Roy) In these three writ petitions, the petitioners question the action of the Joint Sub-Registrar in refusing to register the sale certificates submitted by the petitioners for registration. Therefore, all these three writ petitions are heard together and they are being disposed of by this common order.
2. Heard Sri Sreedhar Valiveti, learned counsel for the petitioners in W.P.Nos.13040 and 13048 of 2025, Sri Tagore Yadav Yaragorla, learned counsel for the petitioner in W.P.No.24428 of 2025 and Sri Dilip Kumar, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue for official respondents. None appeared for unofficial respondents.
3. The petitioners in W.P.Nos.13040 and 13048 of 2025 is Canara Bank and the petitioner in W.P.No.24428 of 2025 is a financial institution i.e. IKF Finance Limited. The principal borrowers have availed loan from them by mortgaging the immovable property as security for repayment of the borrowed amount. As the principal borrowers have committed default in repayment of the loan amount, the petitioners have initiated measures under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short "the SARFAESI Act") and after complying with the procedure prescribed under the law, they have sold away the secured assets in the public auction. After the successful bidders paid the entire sale consideration, necessary sale certificates were issued by the petitioners in favour of the auction purchasers. Thereafter, the petitioners being the bank and the financial institution, have presented the said sale certificates before the Joint Sub-Registrar for registration. The Joint Sub-Registrar refused to register the sale certificates presented before him and declined the request of the petitioners to effect registration of the said sale certificates on the ground that the secured assets have been included in the prohibitory list under 8 Section 22A of the Registration Act (for short "the Act"). The registration has been refused as the secured assets are included in the prohibitory list under Section 22A of the Act on the ground that an order of attachment before judgment was passed in respect of the secured assets by a civil Court in a suit filed by third parties against the owners of the said secured assets. An endorsement that the request of the petitioners made by way of representation seeking permission for registration of the sale certificates could not be acceded to as the said property is included in the prohibitory list under Section 22A of the Act, has been issued by the Joint Sub-Registrar.
4. Therefore, aggrieved by the refusal to register the sale certificates by the Joint Sub-Registrar, the instant writ petitions have been filed by the petitioners as noticed supra.
5. The official respondents have filed counter through the Sub-Registrar in these writ petitions. It is denied that the petitioners have submitted the sale certificates for registration and it is pleaded that as there was an order of attachment before judgment passed by a civil Court against the secured assets and as the copy of the said order was communicated to the office of the Sub-Registrar, that the Sub-Registrar refused to register the sale certificates.
6. At the time of hearing the writ petitions, the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue would contend that the amendment by way of incorporating Section 22C is made in the Registration Act and subsequently a corresponding Rule 20(c) was also incorporated in the Rules of the Registration Act directing the Sub-Registrar not to register any documents relating to transfer of immovable property when there is an order of attachment passed whether provisionally or permanently by a civil Court and in view of the same, that the registration could not be effected.
97. Repelling the said argument, learned counsel for the petitioners would contend that the amendment came into force with effect from 09.07.2025 and the sale certificates are presented for registration long prior to the date on which the amendment came into force and as such, the said amendment which has no retrospective effect has no application to the present sale certificates and the Sub-Registrar committed a gross error in refusing to register the sale certificates and including the said secured assets in the prohibitory list under Section 22A of the Act. Therefore, they prayed to direct the Sub-Registrar to register the said sale certificates. It is also contended that as the mortgage of the secured assets in favour of the petitioners is prior in point of time and as the order of attachment before judgment was passed subsequent to the mortgage, that the mortgage of the secured assets in favour of the petitioners will prevail and the order of subsequent attachment before judgment will not come in the way of registering the sale certificates presented by the petitioners. It is also contended that Section 58 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 protects the prior mortgage of the secured asset and even if there is any subsequent attachment before judgment, it will not come in the way of registration of the said sale certificates after sale of the secured asset in the public auction for realization of the amount due from the principal borrowers.
8. We have given our anxious and thoughtful consideration to the aforesaid submissions made by both the learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue.
9. The fact that the immovable property in question was mortgaged to the petitioner banks and financial institution respectively as security for the loan availed by the principal borrowers by deposit of their title deeds, is not in dispute. Similarly, the fact that the secured assets were sold in the public auction that was held by the petitioners by initiating measures under the SARFAESI Act for recovery of the loan amount from the principal borrowers 10 and that the auction purchasers have purchased the said property and paid the entire sale consideration and that a sale certificate was issued to them by the petitioners is also absolutely not in dispute. These material facts are absolutely incontrovertible facts in these writ petitions.
10. Although, the petitioners have contended that they have presented the said sale certificates issued in favour of the auction purchasers before the Sub-Registrar for registration and that he declined to effect registration, the said fact is denied by the Sub-Registrar in the counter filed by him in these writ petitions. But the evidence on record produced by the petitioners belies the said contention. As can be seen from the written communication issued by the Sub-Registrar, Rajanagaram to the Manager, Canara Bank, which is available at page 63 of the material papers in W.P.No.13040 of 2025 and at page 61 of the material papers in W.P.No.13048 of 2025, it is evident that the bank has made a request to issue permission to approach for registration relating to the property covered by R.S.No.163/3 of Rajanagaram. In the reference of the said proceedings it is shown that the certificate of sale of immovable property dated 20.02.2025 was also submitted. The Sub-Registrar informed them that as the property is in the list of prohibited properties in the office records as on 28.02.2025, registration is not effected. Similarly, as can be seen from the written communication issued by the Joint Sub-Registrar-I of Chittoor to the Authorized Officer of IKF Finance Limited in W.P.No.24428 of 2025 also, it is evident that a representation was submitted by the writ petitioners seeking registration of the sale certificate. Similarly, it is informed that the property in question is included in the list of prohibited properties. So, it is evident when the petitioners in writing sought registration of sale certificates, it was not effected by the Sub-Registrar and the Joint Sub- Registrar.
11. The sale certificates in all the three writ petitions are presented before the amendment to Section 22C of the Act came into effect in the month 11 of July, 2025. So, these written communications addressed by the Sub- Registrar and Joint Sub-Registrar to the petitioners respectively bears ample testimony of the fact that a request was made by way of representation by the petitioners for registration of the sale certificates presented by them. The contents of the written communications clearly indicate that the registration was not effected on the ground that the said properties are included in the prohibitory list of properties because of the order of attachment before judgment was passed by the civil Court. Therefore, the plea taken by the respondents in the counter that the sale certificates are not presented for registration is not correct and it is absolutely false. As noticed supra, these written communications produced by the writ petitioners clearly belies the said contention. So, we have absolutely no hesitation to hold that the petitioners have presented the sale certificates for registration.
12. Now, the crucial question that crops up for determination is whether the Sub-Registrar and the Joint Sub-Registrar are justified in declining to register the sale certificates on the ground that the order of attachment before judgment subsists that was passed by the civil Court or not. It is to be noticed that by the date on which the sale certificates are presented for registration, the amendment to the Registration Act by way of incorporating Section 22C was not in force. It came into effect only on 09.07.2025. The amendment has no retrospective effect. So, it operates only prospectively. So, at best, the Sub-Registrar or Joint Sub-Registrar can refuse to register the sale certificates on the ground that an order of attachment before judgment was passed by the civil Court by virtue of the said amended provision only to the sale certificates that are presented subsequent to the amendment. It is settled law that the law which was prevailing as on the date of presentation of the sale certificates will prevail and apply to the said sale certificates. As on the date of presenting the sale certificates, there is no provision in the Registration Act which enables the Sub-Registrar or Joint Sub-Registrar to refuse registration on the ground of subsistence of an order of attachment passed before judgment by a civil 12 Court. As per the law that is prevailing at that time, the mortgage which is prior in point of time will prevail over the subsequent order of attachment before judgment passed by the civil Court. The legal position in this regard is not res integra and the same has been well settled by way of rendering plethora of judicial pronouncements on the point.
13. The Erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh had an occasion to deal with the legal position in this regard in the case of City Union Bank Limited v. Sub-Registrar, Peddapalli, Karimnagar District and others1. In the said case, when the Sub-Registrar refused to register the sale certificate in favour of the auction purchasers on the ground that an order of attachment before judgment is subsisting which was passed by the civil Court and when the same is questioned, the High Court after considering the law on the aspect, held that a secured creditor is entitled to succeed and directed the Sub-Registrar to register the sale certificates in accordance with the Registration Act. The Court held that as the mortgage in favour of the bank is prior in point of time and as the order of attachment before judgment was passed subsequently, the mortgage in favour of the bank prevails and the Sub-Registrar cannot refuse to register the sale certificates. Again, when the same question came up for consideration before a Coordinate Bench of this Court in W.P.No.18008 of 2024 in the case of Karur Vysya Bank Limited v. The State of Andhra Pradesh and others and also in W.P.No.44014 of 2018 in the case of Andhra Bank, Munagala Branch, rep by its Authorised Officer v. The Commissioner and Inspector General of Registration and Stamps, Hyderabad and others, the Courts have held that when the order of attachment is subsequent in point of time to the mortgage, the claim of the respondent cannot take precedence over the mortgage in favour of the bank and only the respondent can seek for payment of any surplus money, after adjustment of all the dues by the bank.
12018 SCC OnLine Hyd 370 13 Considering the ratio laid down in the said judgments, this Bench very recently in W.P.No.25977 of 2025 has also taken the same view and directed the Sub-Registrar to register the sale certificate despite subsistence of an order of attachment before judgment passed by the civil Court which is subsequent in point of time to the mortgage.
14. Thus, the above legal position as on the date of presentation of the sale certificates in the present cases applies to the said sale certificates. Therefore, the Sub-Registrar is absolutely not justified in informing the petitioners that their request to register the sale certificates cannot be acceded to in view of the fact that an order of attachment before judgment is subsisting and also in including the said properties in the prohibited list of properties under Section 22A of the Act.
15. Therefore, the Sub-Registrar grossly erred in refusing to register the sale certificates presented by the petitioners in favour of the auction purchasers. So, the writ petitioners are entitled for the relief claimed in the writ petitions.
16. Resultantly, the Writ Petitions are allowed directing the Sub- Registrar and the Joint Sub-Registrar in all these three writ petitions to forthwith register the sale certificates that are presented for registration after collecting the necessary stamp duty and registration expenses. There shall be no order as to costs.
Miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, shall stand closed.
________________________________________ JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY _____________________________ JUSTICE TUHIN KUMAR GEDELA Date: 04.02.2026 ARR 14 180 THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE TUHIN KUMAR GEDELA WRIT PETITION NO: 13040/2025 WRIT PETITION NO: 13048/2025 AND WRIT PETITION NO: 24428/2025 Date: 04.02.2026 ARR