Kerala High Court
Sundaram Home Finance Ltd Formerly ... vs State Of Kerala on 13 July, 2021
Author: V Raja Vijayaraghavan
Bench: V Raja Vijayaraghavan
WP(C) NO. 13487 OF 2021 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V
TUESDAY, THE 13TH DAY OF JULY 2021 / 22ND ASHADHA, 1943
WP(C) NO. 13487 OF 2021
PETITIONER/S:
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.
BY ADV VARGHESE C.KURIAKOSE
RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REP. BY SECRETARY, DEPT. OF REVENUE, SECRETARIAT,
TRIVANDRUM-695001.
2 THE SUB REGISTRAR,
SUB REGISTRY OFFICE, EDAKKARA, MALAPPURAM-679331.
3 THE VILLAGE OFFICER
EDAKKARA VILLAGE OFFICE, EDAKKARA, MALAPPURAM-
679331.
4 THE TAHSILDAR,
NILAMBUR TALUK, NILAMBUR, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT-
676542.
SMT K AMMINIKUTTY, SR GOVERNMENT PLEADER
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
13.07.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C) NO. 13487 OF 2021 2
JUDGMENT
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].
2. 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 WP(C) NO. 13487 OF 2021 3 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.
3. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader.
4. 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.
5. 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 WP(C) NO. 13487 OF 2021 4 respondent is directed to register the sale deed, if it is otherwise in order, without insisting for the production of RoR certificate.
The petitioner shall produce a copy of the writ petition along with a copy of the judgment before the concerned respondent for further action.
Sd/-
RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V JUDGE sru WP(C) NO. 13487 OF 2021 5 APPENDIX OF WP(C) 13487/2021 PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:
Exhibit P1 TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE POSSESSION
NOTICE DATED
Exhibit P2 TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE SALE NOTICE
DATED 5.3.2021.
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.
RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS:
NIL