Delhi High Court - Orders
Meenu Mittal And Anr vs Sub Registrar Vic And Ors on 30 November, 2023
Author: Subramonium Prasad
Bench: Subramonium Prasad
$~56
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 1803/2023
MEENU MITTAL AND ANR. ..... Petitioners
Through: Mr. Sanjay Sharma, Advocate.
versus
SUB REGISTRAR VIC AND ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Ms. Mehak Nakra, ASC (C) for
GNCTD with Mr. Abhishek Khari
and Ms. Disha Chaudhary, Advocates
for R-1, 2 & 4.
Ms. Jaya Tomar, Advocate for R-3.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUBRAMONIUM PRASAD
ORDER
% 30.11.2023
1. The Petitioners, being the auction purchaser of the property measuring 25.90 sq. mtrs situated at No.114, PKT-F-2, Sector-16, Rohini, New Delhi- 110085 in an auction conducted by Respondent No.3/State Bank of India pursuant to proceedings initiated under the SARFAESI Act, 2002, has approached this Court for quashing of the Order dated 15.10.2020 passed by Respondent No.1/Sub-Registrar and the Order dated 26.10.2021 passed Respondent No.2 which states that the Sale Certificate has not been produced within four months from the date of the issue of the Sale Certificate and also for a direction by this Court to Respondent Nos.1 to 3 to for registration of the Sale Certificate dated 25.07.2014.
2. The Petitioner, thereafter, filed an amendment application for W.P.(C) 1803/2023 Page 1 of 5 This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 06/12/2023 at 20:57:17 amending the prayer of the writ petition which reads as under"
"(b) Directing the Respondent No. 3 to send the Sale Certificate dated 25.07.2014 in respect of property bearing No. 114, Pkt-F-2, Sector-16, Rohini, New Delhi-110085 to Respondent No. 1 for filing the same in Book No.1 in the interest of justice;"
3. The Respondent No.3/SBI took a stand that in the year 2014 there was no practice of forwarding the copy of the Sale Certificate to Sub-Registrar and that the practice of sending the Sale Certificate to Sub-Registrar was started only after the Judgment passed by the Apex Court in Esjaypee Impex Pvt. Ltd vs. Asst. General Manager and Authorised Officer, Canara Bank, (2021) 11 SCC 537.
4. Be that as it may, the Petitioner has also filed the original Sale Certificate which was earlier untraceable but later the same has been traced.
5. The short question which arises before this Court is whether the Sale Certificate has to be registered or merely it has to be entered in Book No.1 under Section 89 of the Registration Act, 1908.
6. It is the contention of the State/GNCTD that the document has to be stamped in accordance with the Indian Stamp Act, 1899. The said contention is contrary to the law laid down by the Apex Court. The Apex Court in Esjaypee Impex Pvt. Ltd (supra) has held that the mandate of law in terms of Section 17(2)(xii) read with Section 89(4) of the Registration Act only requires the authorized representative of the Bank under the SARFAESI Act to hand over the duly validated Sale Certificate to the Auction Purchaser with a copy forwarded to the Registering Authorities to be filed in Book I as per Section 89 of the Registration Act.
"16. We are of the view that the mandate of law in terms of Section 17(2)(xii) read with Section 89(4) of W.P.(C) 1803/2023 Page 2 of 5 This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 06/12/2023 at 20:57:17 the Registration Act, 1908 only required the authorised officer of the Bank under the Sarfaesi Act to hand over the duly validated sale certificate to the auction- purchaser with a copy forwarded to the registering authorities to be filed in Book I as per Section 89 of the Registration Act."
7. The aforesaid Judgment further came up for consideration before the Apex Court once again in B. Arvind Kumar vs. Govt. of India and Others, (2007) 5 SCC 745. The Paragraph No.12 of the said Judgment reads as under:
"12. The plaintiff has produced the original registered sale certificate dated 29-8-1941 executed by the Official Receiver, Civil Station, Bangalore. The said deed certifies that Bhowrilal (father of the plaintiff) was the highest bidder at an auction-sale held on 22-8- 1941, in respect of the right, title, interest of the insolvent Anraj Sankla, namely, the leasehold right in the property described in the schedule to the certificate (suit property), that his bid of Rs 8350 was accepted and the sale was confirmed by the District Judge, Civil and Military Station, Bangalore on 25-8-1941. The sale certificate declared Bhowrilal to be the owner of the leasehold right in respect of the suit property. When a property is sold by public auction in pursuance of an order of the court and the bid is accepted and the sale is confirmed by the court in favour of the purchaser, the sale becomes absolute and the title vests in the purchaser. A sale certificate is issued to the purchaser only when the sale becomes absolute. The sale certificate is merely the evidence of such title. It is well settled that when an auction- purchaser derives title on confirmation of sale in his favour, and a sale certificate is issued evidencing such sale and title, no further deed of transfer from the court is contemplated or required. In this case, the sale certificate itself was registered, though such a W.P.(C) 1803/2023 Page 3 of 5 This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 06/12/2023 at 20:57:17 sale certificate issued by a court or an officer authorised by the court, does not require registration. Section 17(2)(xii) of the Registration Act, 1908 specifically provides that a certificate of sale granted to any purchaser of any property sold by a public auction by a Civil or Revenue Officer does not fall under the category of non-testamentary documents which require registration under sub-sections (b) and
(c) of Section 17(1) of the said Act. We therefore hold that the High Court committed a serious error in holding that the sale certificate did not convey any right, title or interest to plaintiff's father for want of a registered deed of transfer." (emphasis supplied)
8. A Division Bench of Madras High Court in The Sub Registrar vs. Tripower Enterprises (Private) Limited and Anr passed in W.A. No.633/2022 dated 01.09.2022 while dealing with the issue as to whether the Sale Certificate presented for filing in Book I under Section 89 of the Registration Act is to be stamped or registered and after considering various Orders passed by the Apex Court has observed as under:
"16. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Esjaypee Impex Private Limited Vs. Asst. General Manager and Authorised Officer, Canara Bank W.A.Nos.633 & 1503 of 2022 reported in 2021 (11) SCC 537, held as follows:
"16.We are of the view that the mandate of law in terms of Section 17(2)(xii) read with Section 89(4) of the Registration Act, 1908 only required the authorised officer of the Bank under the SARFAESI Act to hand over the duly validated sale certificate to the auction-purchaser with a copy forwarded to the registering authorities to be filed in Book I as per Section 89 of the Registration Act."W.P.(C) 1803/2023 Page 4 of 5
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 06/12/2023 at 20:57:17
17. It is pertinent to note that the said judgment is later to the Full Bench Judgment. In fine, we hold that the learned single Judge is right in his view that the original sale certificate will need stamping and registration only when the auction purchaser presents it for registration. But when the copy of sale certificate is forwarded for filing in Book I under Section 89 (4) of the Registration Act, the appellant cannot refuse to file a copy and demand payment of stamp duty and registration fee." (emphasis supplied)
9. The question of law is settled despite the fact that the Bank has not forwarded the Sale Certificate to the Sub-Registrar in accordance with the then prevailing practice in the year 2014.
10. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner points out that at the time of issuance of Sale Certificate, the Stamp Duty of Rs.41,600/- and Corporation Tax of Rs.41,600/- has also been paid by the Petitioners.
11. In view of the fact that the original Sale Certificate is with the Registering Authority, the Respondent Nos.1, 2 and 4 are directed to enter the Sale Certificate in Book No.1 as mandated under Section 89(4) of the Registration Act.
12. In view of the above, the writ petition is disposed of, along with pending application(s), if any.
SUBRAMONIUM PRASAD, J NOVEMBER 30, 2023 S. Zakir W.P.(C) 1803/2023 Page 5 of 5 This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 06/12/2023 at 20:57:17