Kerala High Court
Ashamol K P vs The Inspector General Of Registration on 19 May, 2025
Author: Murali Purushothaman
Bench: Murali Purushothaman
2025:KER:34188
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN
MONDAY, THE 19TH DAY OF MAY 2025 / 29TH VAISAKHA, 1947
WP(C) NO. 25722 OF 2023
PETITIONER:
NOWFAL SALAM @ MOHAMMED NOWFAL
AGED 45 YEARS
S/O. ABDUL SALAM, MANAGING PARTNER, TASTY NUT INDUSTRIES,
KILIKOLLOOR RESIDING AT PATTATHIL HOUSE, AYATHIL P O ,
KOLLAM DISTRICT, PIN - 691 017.
BY ADVS.
MOHAN JACOB GEORGE
P.V.PARVATHY (P-41)
REENA THOMAS
NIGI GEORGE
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE PRINCIPAL SUB REGISTRAR
PRINCIPAL SUB REGISTRAR'S OFFICE, KOTTARAKKARA. KOLLAM,
PIN - 691 506. KOLLAM DISTRICT.
2 THE RECOVERY OFFICER
DEBT RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-II, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682 036.
BY ADV. MOHAMMED RAFIQ, SPECIAL GP
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24.10.2024
ALONG WITH WP(C).1930/2023, 5246/2023 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON
19.05.2025 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C) NO.25722 OF 2023 & Connected cases
: 2 :
2025:KER:34188
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN
MONDAY, THE 19TH DAY OF MAY 2025 / 29TH VAISAKHA, 1947
WP(C) NO. 1930 OF 2023
PETITIONERS:
1 REJEESH G
AGED 46 YEARS
S/O. GOPALAKRISHNAN NAIR, ATHAM HOUSE, PERUVARAM KARA,
KOTTUVALLY VILLAGE, NORTH PARAVUR TALUK, NORTH PARAVUR
PO, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN - 683 513.
2 M/S. HOUSING DEVELOPMENT FINANCE CORPORATION LIMITED
DOOR NO.39/6457 OF COCHIN CORPORATION, RAVIPURAM
JUNCTION, M.G.ROAD, THRIKKANARVATTOM DESOM, PERUMANOOR
P.O., ERNAKULAM VILLAGE, KANAYANNUR TALUK, ERNAKULAM
DISTRICT REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORIZED OFFICER SRI. SACHIN A
S, S/O T K SHANAVAS, PIN - 682 015.
BY ADVS.
SHIJU VARGHESE
SACHU THOMAS
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE INSPECTOR GENERAL OF REGISTRATION
OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL OF REGISTRATION, EX-MAJOR
R BALAKRISHNAN NAIR ROAD, NEAR DISTRICT COURT,
VANCHIYOOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, KERALA, PIN - 695 035.
2 THE SUB REGISTRAR
OFFICE OF THE SUB REGISTRAR, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI, PIN - 682 011
WP(C) NO.25722 OF 2023 & Connected cases
: 3 :
2025:KER:34188
3 THE DISTRICT REGISTRAR
OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT REGISTRAR, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI,
PIN - 682 011.
4 THE VILLAGE OFFICER
VILLAGE OFFICE, ERNAKULAM, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI, PIN - 682 011.
BY ADV. MOHAMMED RAFIQ, SPECIAL GP
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 24.10.2024 ALONG
WITH WP(C).25722/2023 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON 19.05.2025
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C) NO.25722 OF 2023 & Connected cases
: 4 :
2025:KER:34188
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN
MONDAY, THE 19TH DAY OF MAY 2025 / 29TH VAISAKHA, 1947
WP(C) NO. 5246 OF 2023
PETITIONER:
SATHEESH BABU
AGED 67 YEARS
NEDIYATHU VILLA, CHIRAKKULAM ROAD, ETTUMANOOR,
KOTTAYAM ., PIN - 686 631.
BY ADVS.
ZAKEER HUSSAIN
K.A.SANJEETHA
RESPONDENTS:
1 SUB REGISTRAR
OFFICE OF THE KADATHURUTHY SUB REGISTRY,
MARKET JUNCTIN, KADATHURUTHY, KOTTAYAM., PIN - 686 604.
2 THE VILLAGE OFFICER
KOTHANALLOOR VILLAGE OFFICE, VAIKOM TALUK,
KOTTAYAM., PIN - 686 141.
3 SOUTH INDIAN BANK LTD.
REGIONAL OFFICE, 1ST FLOOR , REGENCY SQUARE,
K.K. ROAD, KOTTAYAM. REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF MANAGER.,
PIN - 686 002.
BY ADVS.
MOHAN JACOB GEORGE
P.V.PARVATHY (P-41)
WP(C) NO.25722 OF 2023 & Connected cases
: 5 :
2025:KER:34188
REENA THOMAS
NIGI GEORGE
MOHAMMED RAFIQ, SPECIAL GP
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 24.10.2024 ALONG
WITH WP(C).25722/2023 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON 19.05.2025
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C) NO.25722 OF 2023 & Connected cases
: 6 :
2025:KER:34188
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN
MONDAY, THE 19TH DAY OF MAY 2025 / 29TH VAISAKHA, 1947
WP(C) NO. 6164 OF 2023
PETITIONERS:
1 ASHAMOL K P
AGED 35 YEARS
W/O ANILKUMAR, CHEERAMKUNNEL HOUSE, AREEPARAMBU,
CHERTHALA SOUTH VILLAGE, CHERTHALA SOUTH P O,
ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT, PIN - 688 539.
2 M/S. HOUSING DEVELOPMENT FINANCE CORPORATION LIMITED
DOOR NO.39/6457 OF COCHIN CORPORATION, RAVIPURAM
JUNCTION, M.G.ROAD, THRIKKANARVATTOM DESOM, PERUMANOOR
P.O., PIN - 682 015, ERNAKULAM VILLAGE, KANAYANNUR TALUK,
ERNAKULAM DISTRICT REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORIZED OFFICER
SRI. SACHIN A S, S/O T K SHANAVAS, AGED 38., PIN - 682 015.
BY ADV SHIJU VARGHESE
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE INSPECTOR GENERAL OF REGISTRATION
OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL OF REGISTRATION, EX-MAJOR
R BALAKRISHNAN NAIR ROAD, NEAR DISTRICT COURT,
VANCHIYOOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, KERALA, PIN - 695 035.
2 THE SUB REGISTRAR
OFFICE OF THE SUB REGISTRAR, PANAVALLY PANAVALLY P O,
ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT, PIN - 688 526.
3 THE DISTRICT REGISTRAR
OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT REGISTRAR, ALAPPUZHA ALAPPUZHA
DISTRICT, PIN - 688 011.
WP(C) NO.25722 OF 2023 & Connected cases
: 7 :
2025:KER:34188
4 THE VILLAGE OFFICER
THAIKKATTUSSERYVILLAGE OFFICE, THAIKKATTUSSERY P O,
ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT, PIN - 688 528.
*5 MUHAMMED NADEEM
AGED 36 YEARS,
HOUSE NO.11/116, R.K. PILLAI ROAD, THOPPUMPADY P.O.,
PALLURUTHY VILLAGE, KOCHI TALUK, PIN - 682 005.
(ADDL.R5 IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 11.4.2024 IN I.A.NO.
3 OF 2023 IN W.P.(C) NO.6164 OF 2023) .
BY ADVS.
SABU JOHN
RAJEEVU L.G.
SAKERIA. P. PAUL
MOHAMMED RAFIQ, SPECIAL GP
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24.10.2024,
ALONG WITH WP(C).25722/2023 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON
19.05.2024 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C) NO.25722 OF 2023 & Connected cases
: 8 :
2025:KER:34188
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN
MONDAY, THE 19TH DAY OF MAY 2025 / 29TH VAISAKHA, 1947
WP(C) NO. 6290 OF 2023
PETITIONER:
JITHIN JAMEEL
AGED 42 YEARS
RESIDING AT KUMBALATH HOUSE, PALLIPATTUMURI,
THRIKKUNNAPPUZHA P.O. ALAPPUZHA - 690 515.
REPRESENTED BY HIS POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER MUHAMMED
RAFI.T, AGED 37 YEARS, S/O.THAMEEM, RESIDING AT MADATHINKAL
HOUSE, PANOOR, THRIKKUNNAPPUZHA.P.O,
KARTHIKAPPALLY TALUK, ALAPPUZHA., PIN - 690 515.
BY ADVS.
ZAKEER HUSSAIN
K.A.SANJEETHA
RESPONDENTS:
1 SUB REGISTRAR
OFFICE OF THE THRIKKAKKARA SUB REGISTRAR, THRIKKAKKARA
KAKKANAD., PIN - 682 030.
2 FEDERAL BANK LTD
LCRD/ERNAKULAM DIVISION, GROUND FLOOR, FEDERAL TOWERS,
MARINE DRIVE, KOCHI. REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORISED OFFICER.,
PIN - 682 031.
BY ADV. MOHAMMED RAFIQ, SPECIAL GP
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 24.10.2024, ALONG
WITH WP(C).25722/2023 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON 19.05.2025
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C) NO.25722 OF 2023 & Connected cases
: 9 :
2025:KER:34188
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN
MONDAY, THE 19TH DAY OF MAY 2025 / 29TH VAISAKHA, 1947
WP(C) NO. 8079 OF 2023
PETITIONER:
M/S. VTJ FISHERIES PVT. LTD.
HAVING REGISTERED OFFICE AT CC XVIII/54, THOPPUMPADY, KOCHI-
682 005, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR SRI. JOSEPH
J.VAYALAT, AGED 49, S/O. V. T. JOSEPH, VAYALATT HOUSE, MARY
MAGDALENE CHURCH, MOOTHEDAM, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682 304.
BY ADVS.
PEEYUS A.KOTTAM
RAGESH CHAND R.G.
RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, REGISTRATION DEPARTMENT,
SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695 035.
2 THE SUB REGISTRAR
OFFICE OF THE SUB REGISTRAR, KAPPALANDIMUKKU,
MATTANCHERRY, KOCHI, KERALA, PIN - 682 002.
3 THE AUTHORISED OFFICER
FEDERAL BANK LTD, LCRD/ ERNAKULAM DIVISION, GROUND FLOOR,
FEDERAL TOWERS, MARIN DRIVE, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI - 682 031.
4 FEDERAL BANK LTD.
M G ROAD, NORTH END, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI, REPRESENTED BY
CHIEF MANAGER, PIN - 682 031.
WP(C) NO.25722 OF 2023 & Connected cases
: 10 :
2025:KER:34188
5 THE VILLAGE OFFICER
RAMESWARAM VILLAGE, KOCHI TALUK, PULLARDESHAM ROAD,
PALLURUTHY, KOCHI, KERALA, PIN - 682 006.
6 DEPUTY SECRETARY
KOCHI CORPORATION, ZONAL OFFICE, SDPY ROAD, PALLURUTHY,
KOCHI, KERALA, PIN - 682 006.
BY ADVS.
LEO GEORGE
D.G.VIPIN
MOHAMMED RAFIQ, SPECIAL GP
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24.10.2024,
ALONG WITH WP(C).25722/2023 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON
19.05.2025 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C) NO.25722 OF 2023 & Connected cases
: 11 :
2025:KER:34188
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN
MONDAY, THE 19TH DAY OF MAY 2025 / 29TH VAISAKHA, 1947
WP(C) NO. 11527 OF 2023
PETITIONER:
MANOJ JOHN KAPPEN
AGED 50 YEARS, S/O. JOHN,
VALIYAKAPPIL HOUSE, ANTHINADU.P.O., PALA, KOTTAYAM.,
PIN - 686 651.
BY ADVS.
ZAKEER HUSSAIN
K.A.SANJEETHA
RESPONDENTS:
1 SUB REGISTRAR
OFFICE OF THE MEENACHIL SUB- REGISTRAR,
MEENACHIL, PALA, KOTTAYAM.,
PIN - 686 575.
2 THE VILLAGE OFFICER
BHARANANGANAM VILLAGE OFFICE, KOTTAYAM.,
PIN - 686 578.
3 SOUTH INDIAN BANK LTD.
REGIONAL OFFICE, 1ST FLOOR ,
REGENCY SQUARE, K.K. ROAD, KOTTAYAM.
REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF MANAGER.,
PIN - 686 002.
WP(C) NO.25722 OF 2023 & Connected cases
: 12 :
2025:KER:34188
BY ADVS.
MOHAN JACOB GEORGE
P.V.PARVATHY (P-41)
REENA THOMAS
NIGI GEORGE
MOHAMMED RAFIQ, SPECIAL GP
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
24.10.2024 ALONG WITH WP(C).25722/2023 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT
ON 19.05.2025 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C) NO.25722 OF 2023 & Connected cases
: 13 :
2025:KER:34188
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN
MONDAY, THE 19TH DAY OF MAY 2025 / 29TH VAISAKHA, 1947
WP(C) NO. 17193 OF 2023
PETITIONER:
SEENA KANNAN
AGED 47 YEARS
W/O. AJITHKUMAR, EDAKKATTIL HOUSE,
AMITY ASTER DALE VILLA, ALUVA P.O, PIN - 683 101.
BY ADVS.
JAISON JOSEPH
JIMMY JOSEPH
ARCHANA RAMANAN
VEENA VALLIKANTHAN
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE INSPECTOR GENERAL OF REGISTRATION
OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL OF REGISTRATION, EX-MAJOR
R BALAKRISHNAN NAIR ROAD, NEAR DISTRICT COURT,
VANCHIYOOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM., PIN - 695 035.
2 THE SUB REGISTRAR
SUB REGISTRY OFFICE, ALUVA, PIN - 683 101.
3 AUTHORIZED OFFICER
BAJAJ HOUSING FINANCE LTD, COCHIN., PIN - 682 017.
BY ADV. MOHAMMED RAFIQ, SPECIAL GP
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24.10.2024
ALONG WITH WP(C).25722/2023 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON
19.05.2025 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C) NO.25722 OF 2023 & Connected cases
: 14 :
2025:KER:34188
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN
MONDAY, THE 19TH DAY OF MAY 2025 / 29TH VAISAKHA, 1947
WP(C) NO. 21197 OF 2023
PETITIONER:
RAMAKRISHNAN SUNIL BABU
AGED 56 YEARS
S/O RAMAKRISHNAN, RESIDING AT APARTMENT M, DIWAN S
CHAMBERS, DIWAN S ROAD, KOCHI M G ROAD S.O., ERNAKULAM,
PIN - 682 016.
BY ADVS.
AJMAL V. A.
A.C.ARFANA
FATHIMA V.A.
RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY,
REGISTRATION DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 691 001.
2 THE SUB REGISTRAR
SUB REGISTRAR OFFICE, KILIMANOOR,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,
PIN - 695 601.
3 AUTHORIZED OFFICER AND CHIEF MANAGER
CANARA BANK, ARM BRANCH, CHITTOOR ROAD,
ERNAKULAM SOUTH, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682 016.
WP(C) NO.25722 OF 2023 & Connected cases
: 15 :
2025:KER:34188
BY ADVS.
GOPIKRISHNAN NAMBIAR M
K.JOHN MATHAI(K/413/1984)
JOSON MANAVALAN(J-526)
KURYAN THOMAS(K/131/2003)
PAULOSE C. ABRAHAM(MAH/58/2006)
RAJA KANNAN(K/356/2008)
MOHAMMED RAFIQ, SPECIAL GP
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24.10.2024
ALONG WITH WP(C).25722/2023 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON
19.05.2025 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C) NO.25722 OF 2023 & Connected cases
: 16 :
2025:KER:34188
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN
MONDAY, THE 19TH DAY OF MAY 2025 / 29TH VAISAKHA, 1947
WP(C) NO. 22150 OF 2023
PETITIONER:
ANIL KUMAR PALATHINKAL
AGED 62 YEARS
S/O GEORGE P.U., PALATHINKAL HOUSE, N.F.GATE, OPPOSITE
PETTAH BRIDGE, NADAMA VILLAGE, TRIPUNITHURA, ERNAKULAM
DISTRICT, PIN - 682 301.
BY ADVS.
NISHA GEORGE
GEORGE POONTHOTTAM (SR.)
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE SUB REGISTRAR
SUB-REGISTRAR OFFICE, PUTHENCRUZ, PUTHENCRUZ, ERNAKULAM
DISTRICT, PIN - 682 308.
2 UNION BANK OF INDIA
ASSET RECOVERY BRANCH, 2ND FLOOR, UNION BANK BHAVAN,
M.G.ROAD, ERNAKULAM 682 035. REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORIZED
OFFICER, PIN - 682 035.
BY ADV. MOHAMMED RAFIQ, SPECIAL GP
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24.10.2024
ALONG WITH WP(C).25722/2023 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON
19.05.2025 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C) NO.25722 OF 2023 & Connected cases
: 17 :
2025:KER:34188
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN
MONDAY, THE 19TH DAY OF MAY 2025 / 29TH VAISAKHA, 1947
WP(C) NO. 25608 OF 2023
PETITIONER:
DALY BIJI
AGED 52 YEARS, W/O. BIJI MYLADOOR CHACKO,
MYLADOOR HOUSE, ANTHINADU.P.O., PALA, KOTTAYAM,
PIN - 686 651.
BY ADVS.
ZAKEER HUSSAIN
K.A.SANJEETHA
RESPONDENTS:
1 SUB REGISTRAR
OFFICE OF THE MEENACHIL SUB- REGISTRAR, MEENACHIL, PALA,
KOTTAYAM., PIN - 686 575.
2 THE VILLAGE OFFICER
LALAM VILLAGE OFFICE, KOTTAYAM., PIN - 686 574.
3 SOUTH INDIAN BANK LTD.
REGIONAL OFFICE, 1ST FLOOR , REGENCY SQUARE, K.K. ROAD,
COLLECTORATE.P.O., KOTTAYAM. REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF
MANAGER., PIN - 686 002.
BY ADV. MOHAMMED RAFIQ, SPECIAL GP
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24.10.2024
ALONG WITH WP(C).25722/2023 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON
19.05.2025 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C) NO.25722 OF 2023 & Connected cases
: 18 :
2025:KER:34188
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN
MONDAY, THE 19TH DAY OF MAY 2025 / 29TH VAISAKHA, 1947
WP(C) NO. 2891 OF 2024
PETITIONER:
BINU THOMAS MELEDAM
AGED 53 YEARS
MELEDATHUKADAMAKARA VILAKKUVATTOM P O PUNALUR,
KOLLAM-691 305 PRESENTLY RESIDING AT: - A16B GARDEN COURT,
PADIVATTOM CIVIL LINE ROAD, EDAPPALLY SOUTH P 0,
ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682 024.
BY ADVS.
B.VINOD
I.V.PRAMOD
SAIRA SOURAJ P.
AMRUTHA DIWAKAR
RESMI SAJEEVAN
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE AUTHORIZED OFFICER
M/S HDB FINANCIAL SERVICES LTD, 2ND FLOOR,
THE ART OF LIVING TOWER, 13 CROSS ROAD, SBT AVENUE,
NEAR PASSPORT OFFICE PANAMPILLY NAGAR,
KOCHI, PIN - 682 036.
2 SUB REGISTRAR
2ND FLOOR, PERUMPILLY BUILDING MAHATHMAGANDI ROAD,
ABOVE KEERTHILAL JEWELLERY, KPCC JUNCTION,
ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682 011.
WP(C) NO.25722 OF 2023 & Connected cases
: 19 :
2025:KER:34188
3 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY REVENUE
THIRUVANATHAPURAM, PIN - 695 001.
BY ADVS.
PRADEESH CHACKO
P.PAULOCHAN ANTONY P
SREEJITH K.(K/380/2005)
MOHAMMED RAFIQ, SPECIAL GP
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24.10.2024
ALONG WITH WP(C).25722/2023 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON
19.05.2025 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C) NO.25722 OF 2023 & Connected cases
: 20 :
2025:KER:34188
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN
MONDAY, THE 19TH DAY OF MAY 2025 / 29TH VAISAKHA, 1947
WP(C) NO. 14650 OF 2024
PETITIONERS:
1 B. VIJAYAKUMAR,
AGED 55 YEARS
S/O. BALAN PILLAI, KALLELATHUTHARAYIL SIVADEVAM,
PALLARIMANGALAM P.O, MAVELIKARA, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT,
PIN - 690 107.
2 THE FEDERAL BANK LIMITED, LCRD/MAVELIKKARA (SATELLITE)
DIVISION, 1 ST FLOOR, PADINJARETHALACKAL CHERIAN CHAMBERS,
PUTHIYAKAVU, MAVELIKKARA, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT REPRESENTED
BY ASSITANT VICE PRESIDENT AND AUTHORIZED OFFICER.,
PIN - 690 101.
BY ADVS.
MOHAN JACOB GEORGE
P.V.PARVATHY (P-41)
REENA THOMAS
NIGI GEORGE
ANANTHU V.LAL
HARISANKAR S.
RESPONDENT:
THE SUB REGISTRAR, OFFICE OF THE SUB REGISTRAR,
MAVELIKKARA SRO, MAVELIKKARA P.O, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT,
PIN - 690 101.
BY ADV. MOHAMMED RAFIQ, SPECIAL GP
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24.10.2024
ALONG WITH WP(C).25722/2023 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON
19.05.2025 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C) NO.25722 OF 2023 & Connected cases
: 21 :
2025:KER:34188
JUDGMENT
These writ petitions are filed challenging the refusal on the part of the respective Sub-Registrars, who have been impleaded as respondents, to enter the details of sale certificates issued to the petitioners by various banks and financial institutions in Book No.1, as required under Section 89(4) of the Registration Act, 1908.
2. The petitioners contend that when a certificate of sale of immovable property is issued by the Recovery Officer of the Debts Recovery Tribunal or by banks and financial institutions, it cannot be treated as a conveyance liable to stamp duty, nor is it an instrument which is compulsorily registrable. It is contended that, as per Section 89(4) of the Registration Act, 1908, the copy WP(C) NO.25722 OF 2023 & Connected cases : 22 : 2025:KER:34188 of the sale certificate is liable to be filed in Book No.1 maintained by the Sub-Registrar, within whose jurisdiction the property is situated. In terms of Section 17(2)(xii) read with Section 89(4) of the Registration Act, 1908, the Recovery Officer/authorized officer of the banks and financial institutions is only required to hand over the duly validated sale certificate to the auction purchaser, with a copy forwarded to the registering authority for filing in Book No.1. Once a copy of the sale certificate is received by the concerned Sub- Registrar, he is obligated to file it in Book No.1, as mandated by Section 89 of the Registration Act, 1908. This process has the effect of registration and obviates the need for any further action. The petitioners submit that the aforesaid procedure does not contemplate a WP(C) NO.25722 OF 2023 & Connected cases : 23 : 2025:KER:34188 document being presented for registration, but merely requires a copy to be filed or entered in Book No.1, which does not attract any stamp duty.
3. A counter affidavit has been filed by the Inspector General of Registration in W.P (C) No.1930 of 2023 and adopted in other cases. It is stated that, in exercise of powers conferred by Entry 63 of List II and Entry 44 of List III of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution of India, the State of Kerala has enacted the Kerala Stamp Act, 1959. Section 3 thereof provides, inter alia, that instruments executed in the territory of State of Kerala shall be chargeable with duty as specified in the Schedule to the Act. Section 17 of the Act mandatorily provides that all instruments chargeable with duty executed in the State of Kerala "shall be stamped before WP(C) NO.25722 OF 2023 & Connected cases : 24 : 2025:KER:34188 or at the time of execution". It is stated that Entry 16 of the Schedule to the Kerala Stamp Act, 1959 specifically refers to 'sale certificate' and the duty payable thereof is the same as applicable to conveyance chargeable under entry 21 or 22 of the Schedule. Therefore, sale certificate is an instrument liable to be charged with stamp duty and for non-payment of stamp duty, the sale certificate is liable to be impounded. It is further contended that the General Stamp Act (Act: No. XXVIII of 1869) and the Kerala Stamp Act, 1959 are not in pari materia and therefore any decision rendered in the context of the former has no application in the context of the present cases. The counter affidavit states that, it is true that a Certificate of sale is not a compulsorily registrable document as per the Registration Act, 1908. However, WP(C) NO.25722 OF 2023 & Connected cases : 25 : 2025:KER:34188 filing of sale certificate in Book No.1 has the same effect of registration. Since both processes involve similar services by the registering authority, the State is entitled to levy registration charges in exercise of powers conferred by Entry 47 of List III of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution of India.
4. Heard Sri. Mohan Jacob George, Sri. Peeyus A. Kottam, Sri. S. Ranjith, Sri. Shiju Varghese, Sri. B.Vinod, Smt. Sanjeetha K.A, Smt. Nisha George and Sri. Ajmal V.A, the learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri. Mohammed Rafiq, the learned Special Government Pleader (Taxes) and the learned standing counsel for the banks and financial institutions.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioners relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Shanti WP(C) NO.25722 OF 2023 & Connected cases : 26 : 2025:KER:34188 Devi L. Singh v. Tax Recovery Officer and others (Kapoor Sons and Co. v. Tax Recovery Officer) [1990 KHC 548:
(1990) 3 SCC 605:AIR 1991 SC 1880] to contend that the filing in Book No.1 under Section 89 of the Registration Act is not a "registration" that attracts stamp duty under the relevant Stamp Act provisions, but a ministerial act of record-keeping. The Court held that the term "Revenue Officer" in Section 89(4) is wide enough to include Tax Recovery Officer (TRO) and when a TRO forwards a copy of the certificate of sale to the Sub-
Registrar, the Sub-Registrar is obligated under Section 89(4) to file the copy of the certificate in Book No. 1 and filing of certificate in Book No.1 tantamount to registration under the Registration Act. They also relied on the decision in Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. WP(C) NO.25722 OF 2023 & Connected cases : 27 : 2025:KER:34188 Pramod Kumar Gupta [1991 KHC 910: (1991) 1 SCC 633:
AIR 1991 SC 401], wherein the Supreme Court held that a certificate of sale issued by a Civil Court under Order XXI, Rule 94 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, in respect of an auction sale of immovable property, is not an "instrument of sale" within the meaning of Section 147 of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957 so as to attract the levy of duty under the said Section. The decision in B. Arvind Kumar v. Govt. of India and Others [(2007) 5 SCC 745] was relied on to contend that a sale certificate, issued by a civil or revenue officer, is specifically exempted from mandatory registration under Section 17(2)(xii) of the Registration Act, 1908. The decision in Esjaypee Impex Pvt. Ltd. v. Asset General Manager and Authorised Officer, Canara Bank [(2021) 11 WP(C) NO.25722 OF 2023 & Connected cases : 28 : 2025:KER:34188 SCC 537] is also cited stating that the Supreme Court has observed therein that the mandate of law under Section 17(2)(xii) read with Section 89(4) of the Registration Act, 1908, only requires the Authorised Officer under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act) to hand over the duly validated sale certificate to the auction purchaser, with a copy forwarded to the registering authority for filing in Book No.1. The learned counsel for the petitioners also relied on the decision of this Court in Krishnan K.V. v. State of Kerala and Others [2021 (6) KHC 576: 2021 (6) KLT 377: ILR 2022 (1) Ker.
312], wherein the grievance raised was that the Sub- Registrar refused to enter a Sale Certificate in Book No.1 on the ground that the statutory time limit had WP(C) NO.25722 OF 2023 & Connected cases : 29 : 2025:KER:34188 expired and that the certificate required registration with proper stamp duty under Section 17 of the Registration Act. This Court, relying on the decision in Esjaypee Impex (supra), held as follows:-
"7. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has answered this aspect in the penultimate paragraph of the above judgment as under:
"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 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."
8. It is, therefore, indubitable that it is upto the auction purchaser to decide whether he wants the sale certificate to be registered, or only its details to be entered in Book No.1. If he exercises the option for the particulars of the sale certificate to be WP(C) NO.25722 OF 2023 & Connected cases : 30 : 2025:KER:34188 entered in Book No.1, as per the provisions of the Registration Act, then obviously, he will have to hand over the validated sale certificate to the jurisdictional Registering Authority, who can enter it in the said Book, following due procedure.
Resultantly, I allow this writ petition and permit the petitioner to approach the 4 th respondent Bank, who shall re-validate Ext. P1 Sale Certificate as per law without any delay. The petitioner will, thereupon, be entitled to present the revalidated Sale Certificate before the 2nd respondent Sub Registrar, who will then enter it in Book No.1, following due procedure, within a period of one week thereafter."
6. In support of the contention of the petitioners that no stamp duty or registration fee is payable in respect of such sale certificates, they relied on an order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Inspector General of Registration and Another v. G. Madhurambal WP(C) NO.25722 OF 2023 & Connected cases : 31 : 2025:KER:34188 and Another [2022 LiveLaw (SC) 969]. While considering an application for special leave against the Division Bench judgments of the Madras High Court in Sub Registrar, Neelangarai, Chennai v. Tripower Enterprises (Pvt.) Ltd. [W.A. No.633/2022 and connected cases] wherein it has been held that the Authorized Officer under the SARFAESI Act falls within the description of a 'Civil or Revenue Officer' under Section 17(2) of the Registration Act, and in Inspector General of Registration v. Tripower Properties (Pvt.) Ltd. [W.A. No.589/2022 and connected cases], wherein the Court held that a certificate of sale issued by the Administrator Committee appointed by the High Court need only be filed in accordance with Section 89(2) of the Registration Act, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as follows:
WP(C) NO.25722 OF 2023 & Connected cases : 32 : 2025:KER:34188 "Learned counsel for the petitioner(s) has made a valiant endeavor to persuade us to interfere with the impugned judgment(s) but not successfully. It is logically so as this issue has been repeatedly settled and if one may say, a consistent view followed for the last 150 years. We may refer to the judgments by the MADRAS High Court in the Board of Revenue No.2 of 1875 (In Re: Case Referred) dated 19.10.1875 opining that a certificate of sale cannot be regarded as a conveyance subject to stamp duty, by the Allahabad High Court in Adit Ram v. Masarat-un- Nissa opining that a sale certificate is not an instrument of the kind mentioned in clause (b) of Section 17 of Act III of 1877 and is not compulsory registrable and this Court's view in Esjaypee Impex Pvt. Ltd v. Asset General Manager and Authorised Officer, Canara Bank opining 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 WP(C) NO.25722 OF 2023 & Connected cases : 33 : 2025:KER:34188 per Section 89 of the Registration Act and order of this Court in M.A. No.19262/2021 in SLP(C) No.29572/2019 dated 29.10.2021 opining that once a direction is issued for the duly validated certificate to be issued 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, it has the same effect as registration and obviates the requirement of any further action.
It is time that the authorities stop filing unnecessary special leave petitions only with the objective of attaining some kind of a final dismissal from this Court every time. Costs this time has been spared but will not be spared the next time.
The needful be done in terms of the impugned judgment(s) within 15 days from today.
The special leave petitions are dismissed." The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in G. Madhurambal (supra), followed the decision of the Madras High Court In Re:
Board of Revenue No.2 of 1875 and its own earlier WP(C) NO.25722 OF 2023 & Connected cases : 34 : 2025:KER:34188 decision in Esjaypee Impex, and order in M.A. No. 19262/2021 in SLP(C) No.29572/2019 dated 29.10.2021, wherein it was held that once such a certificate is issued and a copy is forwarded to the registering authority, it has the same effect as registration and obviates the need for any further action.
7. The learned counsel for the petitioners also relied on the judgment of this Court in Thomas Daniel v. The Revenue Divisional Officer and Others [Judgment dated 15.01.2024 in W.P.(C) No.15095 of 2015:
2024:KER:3851], wherein, pursuant to a revenue sale, the petitioner therein successfully bid the property in auction, following which the sale was confirmed and a certificate of sale of immovable property was issued in his favour. In compliance with the mandate under WP(C) NO.25722 OF 2023 & Connected cases : 35 : 2025:KER:34188 Section 89(4) of the Registration Act, the Revenue Divisional Officer forwarded a copy of the sale certificate to the Sub-Registrar for filing in Book No.1. However, the Sub-Registrar failed to act on it, citing non-payment of stamp duty as required under Article 16 of the Schedule to the Kerala Stamp Act, 1959. This Court, relying on the decisions in Shanti Devi and Esjaypee Impex (supra), directed the Sub-Registrar to file the copy of the sale certificate in Book No.1 without insisting on the payment of any stamp duty.
8. Finally, the petitioners relied on a more recent decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Punjab v. Ferrous Alloy Forgings (P) Ltd. [2024 KHC 6650 : 2024 SCC OnLine 3372] wherein the Court considered the question whether it is mandatory for the successful WP(C) NO.25722 OF 2023 & Connected cases : 36 : 2025:KER:34188 auction purchaser to deposit the stamp duty for the sale certificate to be issued to it in view of the provisions of the Stamp Act and the Registration Act. After referring to the decisions in Shanti Devi, Pramod Kumar Gupta, B. Arvind Kumar, Esjaypee Impex and G. Madhurambal (supra), the Supreme Court held that a sale certificate issued by an authorised officer is not compulsorily registrable, and mere filing under Section 89(4) of the Registration Act by forwarding a copy to the registering authority is sufficient. In the light of these decisions, the petitioners contend that sale certificate issued by an authorised officer is not compulsorily registrable and the Sub-Registrars cannot refuse to enter the details of the sale certificate in Book No.1, maintained in terms of Section 89(4) of the Registration Act, 1908, and that the WP(C) NO.25722 OF 2023 & Connected cases : 37 : 2025:KER:34188 process of filing the copy of the sale certificate in Book No.1 does not attract stamp duty.
9. Sri. Mohammed Rafiq, the learned Special Government Pleader would contend that sale certificate issued under Rule 9(6) of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules 2002 answers to the definition of 'instrument' under Section 2 (j) of the Kerala Stamp Act, 1959, and is therefore chargeable to stamp duty. He relied on the decision in Sub-Registrar v. Nadirshah and another [2009 (1) KHC 722: 2009 (1) KLT 630:ILR 2009 (1) Ker. 659] wherein the Division Bench of this Court after referring to the decision in Shanti Devi (supra) held that the Sub-Registrar being a "public officer" referred to in Section 34 of the Kerala Stamp Act was justified in returning the copy of the sale certificate forwarded to WP(C) NO.25722 OF 2023 & Connected cases : 38 : 2025:KER:34188 him under Section 89(4) of the Registration Act and that the purchaser is bound to pay stamp duty. Sri.Rafiq also referred to the Division Bench decision of this Court in State of Kerala v. George Jacob [2005 (4) KLT 709] wherein it has been held that an instrument chargeable under the Kerala Stamp Act has to be stamped on the date of its execution as defined in Section 2(f) i.e., the date on which it is signed. Sri.Rafiq referred to the decision in Varghese v. Sub-Registrar [2007(2) KLT 223] and submitted that by virtue of Section 30(e) of the Kerala Stamp Act, the liability to pay stamp duty for the sale certificate to be issued by the recovery officer is on the purchaser of the property and he is bound to furnish stamp paper for the value in terms of Article 16 of the Schedule to the Stamp Act. Sri.Rafiq submits that though WP(C) NO.25722 OF 2023 & Connected cases : 39 : 2025:KER:34188 a certificate of sale is not a compulsorily registrable document as per the Registration Act, 1908, the filing of sale certificate in Book No.1 has the same effect of registration and is a compulsorily registrable document under the Transfer of Property Act. He referred to the decision in Reghunath and Others v. Kedar Nath [(1969) 1 SCC 497], wherein a larger Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that documents required to be registered under Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act, though not under the Registration Act, would still fall within the scope of Section 49 of the Registration Act. Consequently, if such documents are not registered, they are inadmissible as evidence of any transaction affecting the immovable property mentioned therein.
Sri.Rafiq submits that in G.Madhurambal (supra), the WP(C) NO.25722 OF 2023 & Connected cases : 40 : 2025:KER:34188 Hon'ble Supreme Court, referring to the decision of the Madras High Court In Re: Board of Revenue No.2 of 1875, opined that a certificate of sale cannot be regarded as a conveyance subject to stamp duty. He submits that the issue considered by the Madras High Court In Re:
Board of Revenue No.2 of 1875 was whether a sale certificate issued under Sections 35 and 40 of the Madras Rent Recovery Act, 1865 is chargeable to stamp duty under the General Stamp Act, 1869. The General Stamp Act, 1869 which fell for consideration of the Madras High Court In Re: Board of Revenue No.2 of 1875 was repealed and re-enacted as Stamp Act, 1879 and as per Article 16 of the Schedule to the said Act, the certificate of sale is an instrument chargeable to stamp duty and the propositions of law laid down In Re: Board of WP(C) NO.25722 OF 2023 & Connected cases : 41 : 2025:KER:34188 Revenue No.2 of 1875 were superseded and the said position was never brought to the notice of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in G. Madhurambal (supra). Accordingly, it is contended that, in G.Madhurambal (supra), interplay of provisions contained in the Transfer of Property Act, Registration Act, Stamp Act and Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules were not considered and the decision is per incuriam. Sri.Rafiq refers to the Seven Bench decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court In Re Interplay between Arbitration Agreements Under Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 and Stamp Act, 1899 (NN Global (3)) [(2024) 6 SCC 1] and submits that the said decision has settled the legal position that a document chargeable to stamp duty shall be stamped at the time when it was executed and that a copy of an unstamped instrument WP(C) NO.25722 OF 2023 & Connected cases : 42 : 2025:KER:34188 which is chargeable to stamp duty cannot be acted upon by a public officer under Section 35 of the Indian Stamp Act. Interpreting Section 35 of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that an instrument not duly stamped is inadmissible in evidence for any purpose and it shall not be acted upon, registered or authenticated and that, Section 35 is significant because it gives teeth to the Stamp Act by ensuring that stamp duty is paid before rights and obligations arising out of the concerned instrument are enforced. Section 35 states that an instrument not duly stamped and chargeable with duty shall not be admitted in evidence by any person having by law or by consent of the parties the authority to receive evidence. The Court also held that, "the words 'for any purpose' mean that the instrument cannot WP(C) NO.25722 OF 2023 & Connected cases : 43 : 2025:KER:34188 be relied upon for a collateral purpose either. Further, the instrument shall not be acted upon registered or authenticated by such person or by any public officer, unless it is stamped. The words 'acted upon' are with reference to the acts of proceedings before such officer or public officer, as the case may be". The Court further observed that a copy of an instrument cannot be validated and acted upon, albeit where multiple copies are prepared and signed and sent to respective parties.
10. Sri. Rafiq refers to Rule 9 of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002, to emphasize that the sale of immovable property under the SARFAESI Act does not result in an automatic transfer upon acceptance of the highest bid. The sale is subject to confirmation by the secured creditor, and no sale can be confirmed if the WP(C) NO.25722 OF 2023 & Connected cases : 44 : 2025:KER:34188 highest bid is below the reserve price. The highest bidder must initially deposit 25% of the sale amount, with the balance payable within 15 days of confirmation or within an extended period. If the purchaser defaults, the deposit is forfeited and the property is resold. Under Rule 9(6), the authorized officer issues a sale certificate only after confirmation by the secured creditor and full payment by the purchaser. Delivery of possession and issuance of the certificate occur simultaneously, and the officer must sign the certificate, acknowledging full payment and transfer of possession. Sri. Rafiq refers to the Constitution Bench decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Bombay Salt and Chemical Industries v. L.J. Johnson [AIR 1958 SC 289] wherein it was held that on approval of the bid, binding contract for sale of the property to the auction WP(C) NO.25722 OF 2023 & Connected cases : 45 : 2025:KER:34188 purchaser comes into existence and then the provision as to the sale certificate would indicate that only upon the issue of it a transfer of property takes place. Therefore, certificate of sale so issued is a compulsorily registrable document as per Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. Sri. Rafiq submits that the certificate of sale issued under Rule 9(6) of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002, falls within the definition of 'instrument' under Section 2(j) of the Kerala Stamp Act, 1959, and is therefore chargeable to stamp duty.
11. Referring to the decision in Ferrous Alloy Forgings (P) Limited (supra), Sri. Rafiq submits that the finding therein that no stamp duty is payable when a copy of the sale certificate is forwarded to the Registrar under Section 89(4) of the Registration Act, 1908, runs WP(C) NO.25722 OF 2023 & Connected cases : 46 : 2025:KER:34188 contrary to the findings in NN Global (3) (supra). He contends that the seven-Judge Bench decision in NN Global (3) will prevail over the two-Judge Bench decision in Ferrous Alloy Forgings (P) Limited (supra).
12. The question involved in the writ petitions is whether the petitioners are entitled to have copies of their sale certificates, issued by various banks and financial institutions, filed in Book No.1 under Section 89(4) of the Registration Act, 1908, without insisting on payment of stamp duty.
13. Rule 9 of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002 deals with issuance of sale certificate by the authorized officer of the bank or financial institution. Sub-rule (6) of Rule 9 provides that on confirmation of sale by the secured creditor and if the terms of payment WP(C) NO.25722 OF 2023 & Connected cases : 47 : 2025:KER:34188 have been complied with, the authorized officer exercising the power of sale shall issue a certificate of sale of the immovable property in favour of the purchaser in the form given in Appendix-V to the Rules. It is to be noted that the SARFAESI Act or the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002 does not provide for payment of stamp duty for issuance of certificate of sale.
14. Section 17(1) of the Registration Act, 1908 deals with documents of which registration is compulsory. Section 17(2) deals with the exception thereof. Section 17(2)(xii) of the Registration Act reads as follows:
"17. Documents of which registration is compulsory:
(2) Nothing in clauses (b) and (c) of sub-section (1) applies to-
(xii) any certificate of sale granted to the purchaser WP(C) NO.25722 OF 2023 & Connected cases : 48 : 2025:KER:34188 of any property sold by public auction by a Civil or Revenue Officer."
Section 89(4) of the Registration Act reads as follows:
"89. Copies of certain orders, certificates and instruments to be sent to Registering Officers and filed.
(4) Every Revenue Officer granting a certificate of sale to the purchaser of immovable property sold by public auction shall send a copy of the certificate to the Registering Officer within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the whole or any part of the immovable property comprised in the certificate is situate, and such officer shall file the copy in his Book No. 1."
15. Section 51 of the Registration Act deals with Register-books to be kept in several offices and Book 1 deals with 'Register of non-testamentary documents relating to immovable property'. Section 51(2) provides WP(C) NO.25722 OF 2023 & Connected cases : 49 : 2025:KER:34188 that, in Book 1 shall be filed - (i) true copies of all documents; and (ii) all memorandum, registered under Section 17, 18 and 89 which relates to immovable property and are not wills.
16. Section 55(2) ensures that there is a proper indexing system for all documents filed in Book No. 1. Section 17(2)(xii) of the Registration Act provides that a certificate of sale issued by a Civil or a Revenue Officer in evidence of sale by public auction is not compulsorily registrable. Section 89(4) of the Registration Act provides that every Revenue Officer, who conducts an auction sale shall forward the certificate to the registering authority to enable him to file the same in Book No.1 maintained by him.
17. Section 3 of the Kerala Stamp Act, 1959 deals WP(C) NO.25722 OF 2023 & Connected cases : 50 : 2025:KER:34188 with 'instruments chargeable with duty and reads as follows:
"3. Instruments chargeable with duty.- Subject to the provisions of this Act and the exemptions contained in Schedule, the following instruments shall be chargeable with duty of the amount indicated in that Schedule as the proper duty therefore, respectively, that is to say-
(a) every instrument mentioned in the Schedule which not having been previously executed by any person, is executed in the territories of the State of Kerala on or after commencement of this Act; and
(b) xxxxxx."
Section 17 of the Kerala Stamp Act provides that all instruments chargeable with duty and executed by any person in the State of Kerala shall be stamped before or at the time of execution. Entry 16 of the Schedule to the Kerala Stamp Act deals with certificate of sale granted to the purchaser of any property sold by public auction by WP(C) NO.25722 OF 2023 & Connected cases : 51 : 2025:KER:34188 a Civil or Revenue Court or by the Government, Collector, other Revenue Officer or a Civil Officer and provides that the duty payable is the same duty as on a conveyance chargeable under Entries 21 and 22 of the Schedule. It is to be noted that there is no entry in the Stamp Act pertaining to a sale certificate issued by the authorized officer under the SARFAESI Act. Then the question to be considered is whether, a certificate of sale issued by a Revenue Officer or Civil Officer can be treated as a conveyance and requires registration.
The term Revenue or Civil Officer is not defined either under the Stamp Act or under the Registration Act. In Shanti Devi (supra), the Supreme Court held that the term "Revenue Officer" in Section 89(4) is wide enough to include Tax Recovery Officer and when a TRO WP(C) NO.25722 OF 2023 & Connected cases : 52 : 2025:KER:34188 forwards a copy of the certificate of sale to the Sub- Registrar, the Sub-Registrar is obligated under Section 89(4) of the Registration Act to file the copy of the certificate in Book No. 1 and filing of certificate in Book No.1 tantamount to registration under the Registration Act. In B. Arvind Kumar (supra), the Honb'le Supreme Court held that a sale certificate, issued by a Civil or Revenue Officer, is specifically exempted from mandatory registration under Section 17(2)(xii) of the Registration Act, 1908. The Madras High Court in G. Madhurambal (MANU/TN/8817/2021) held that the Authorized Officer under the SARFAESI Act falls within the description of a "Civil or Revenue Officer" under Section 17(2) of the Registration Act. In view of the aforesaid decisions, it can be concluded that an authorized officer who WP(C) NO.25722 OF 2023 & Connected cases : 53 : 2025:KER:34188 conducts a sale under the provisions of the SARFAESI Act, would be a Revenue Officer in terms of Section 17(2)(xii) read with Section 89 (4) of the Registration Act, 1908. In G. Madhurambal (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that the consistent position of law is that a certificate of sale cannot be regarded as a conveyance subject to stamp duty.
18. The Next question to be considered is whether a sale certificate is an "instrument" that is compulsorily registrable under the Registration Act, 1908.
19. In Pramod Kumar Gupta, the Supreme Court held that a certificate of sale issued by a Civil Court under Order XXI, Rule 94 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, in respect of an auction sale of immovable property, is not an "instrument of sale"
WP(C) NO.25722 OF 2023 & Connected cases : 54 : 2025:KER:34188 within the meaning of Section 147 of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957 so as to attract the levy of duty under the said Section. The Court held that issuance of sale certificate does not create or extinguish any title and thus would not attract any stamp duty which is applicable qua an instrument of sale of immovable property. In Shanti Devi (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that since the certificate of sale is not a compulsorily registrable document in lieu of Section 17(2)(xii) of the Registration Act, 1908, the transfer of title in favour of the auction purchaser is not vitiated by the non registration of the sale certificate. In Arvind Kumar (supra), the Supreme Court considering the scope of Section 17(2)(xii) of the Registration Act, 1908 held that a sale certificate is merely an evidence of title WP(C) NO.25722 OF 2023 & Connected cases : 55 : 2025:KER:34188 and it does not convey title and therefore does not require registration under Section 17(1) of the Registration Act. The Court observed as follows:
"...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 sale certificate issued by a court or an officer authorized by the court, does not require registration. S.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 WP(C) NO.25722 OF 2023 & Connected cases : 56 : 2025:KER:34188 auction by a civil or revenue officer does not fall under the category of non testamentary documents which require registration under sub-section (b) and
(c) of S.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."
20. In Esjaypee Impex (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that the mandate of law that flows from a combined reading of Sections 17(2) (xii) and 89(4) of the Registration Act respectively is that the auction purchaser is entitled to receive the original sale certificate and a copy of the same is required to be forwarded to the Sub- Registrar for the purpose of filing in Book No. 1 as per the Registration Act, implying it is not mandatorily registrable like other conveyances. In G. WP(C) NO.25722 OF 2023 & Connected cases : 57 : 2025:KER:34188 Madhurambal (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that the consistent position of law is that a certificate of sale cannot be regarded as a conveyance subject to stamp duty and once a direction is issued for the duly validated certificate to be issued to the auction purchaser with a copy forwarded to the registering authorities to be filed in Book 1 as per Section 89 of the Registration Act, it has the same effect as registration and requirement of any further action is obviated. In Ferrous Alloy Forgings (P) Ltd (supra), the Supreme Court explicitly stated that a sale certificate issued by the authorized officer is not compulsorily registrable, and mere filing under Section 89(4) of the Registration Act itself is sufficient. In paragraph 20 of the judgment, the Court observed as follows:
WP(C) NO.25722 OF 2023 & Connected cases : 58 : 2025:KER:34188 "20. The position of law discussed above makes it clear that sale certificate issued by the authorised officer is not compulsorily registrable. Mere filing under S.89(4) of the Registration Act itself is sufficient when a copy of the sale certificate is forwarded by the authorised officer to the registering authority. However, a perusal of Art.18 and Art.23 respectively of the first schedule to the Stamp Act respectively makes it clear that when the auction purchaser presents the original sale certificate for registration, it would attract stamp duty in accordance with the said Articles. As long as the sale certificate remains as it is, it is not compulsorily registrable. It is only when the auction purchaser uses the certificate for some other purpose that the requirement of payment of stamp duty, etc. would arise."
21. The final question to be considered is whether the filing of a copy of the sale certificate in Book No. 1, as mandated by Section 89(4) of the Registration Act, WP(C) NO.25722 OF 2023 & Connected cases : 59 : 2025:KER:34188 1908 attracts stamp duty. In Shanti Devi (supra), the Supreme Court held that the filing in Book No. 1 under Section 89 of the Registration Act is not a "registration"
that attracts stamp duty under the relevant Stamp Act provisions. In Pramod Kumar Gupta (supra), the Supreme Court held that issuance of sale certificate does not create or extinguish any title and thus would not attract any stamp duty which is applicable qua an instrument of sale of immovable property. In G. Madhurambal (supra), the Supreme Court observed that the consistent position of law is that a certificate of sale cannot be regarded as a conveyance subject to stamp duty. In Ferrous Alloy Forgings (P) Ltd. (supra), the Supreme Court held that mere act of filing a copy of sale certificate under Section 89(4) does not attract stamp duty and only if the auction WP(C) NO.25722 OF 2023 & Connected cases : 60 : 2025:KER:34188 purchaser uses the certificate for some other purposes that the requirement of stamp duty would arise.
22. In view of the authoritative pronouncements of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, it is trite that a certificate of sale of immovable property issued by the authorised officer of banks or financial institutions does not constitute a conveyance, nor is it an instrument that is compulsorily registrable under the Registration Act. Furthermore, the mere act of filing a copy of the sale certificate in Book No. 1, as mandated under Section 89(4) of the Registration Act, does not attract stamp duty. It is so declared.
23. The contention of Sri.Rafiq that the decision in Ferrous Alloy Forgings (P) Ltd. (supra) is contrary to the findings in NN Global (3) cannot be sustained. In NN WP(C) NO.25722 OF 2023 & Connected cases : 61 : 2025:KER:34188 Global (3), the Hon'ble Supreme Court was considering the question whether an arbitration agreement under the provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, which was not stamped would be rendered void ab initio as well as the acceptability of the same in evidence. The Court held that a document chargeable to stamp duty must be duly stamped at the time of execution and that an unstamped instrument cannot be acted upon by a public officer under Section 35 of the Indian Stamp Act. In Ferrous Alloy Forgings (P) Ltd. (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court considered the question whether it is mandatory for the successful auction purchaser to deposit the stamp duty for the sale certificate to be issued to it, in view of the provisions of the Stamp Act and the Registration Act. The question involved in the present WP(C) NO.25722 OF 2023 & Connected cases : 62 : 2025:KER:34188 cases is whether the petitioners are entitled to get their sale certificate issued by the authorized officer be filed in Book No.1 under Section 89(4) of the Registration Act without insisting for stamp duty. The contention of Sri Rafiq that the decision in G. Madhurambal (supra) is per incuriam because it relied on the Madras High Court's judgment In Re: Board of Revenue No. 2 of 1875, which was based on the repealed General Stamp Act, 1869, also cannot be sustained. It should be noted that, in G. Madhurambal (supra), apart from the propositions of law laid down In Re: Board of Revenue No. 2 of 1875 , the Court also relied on the more recent decision in Esjaypee Impex (supra) and the order dated 29.10.2021 in M.A. No. 19262/2021 in SLP(C) No. 29572/2019.
24. In view of the categorical pronouncements of WP(C) NO.25722 OF 2023 & Connected cases : 63 : 2025:KER:34188 the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the decisions cited above, the Sub-Registrars cannot refuse to enter the details of the sale certificate in Book No.1 maintained in terms of the provisions contained in Section 89(4) of the Registration Act. Accordingly, there will be a direction to the respective Sub-Registrars who have been impleaded as respondents, to file the copy of the respective sale certificates of the petitioners issued by various banks and financial institutions or the Recovery Officer, Debts Recovery Tribunal, in Book No.1, as required under Section 89(4) of the Registration Act, 1908, without insisting for payment of any stamp duty, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within one month from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment If any sale certificate requires revalidation, it will WP(C) NO.25722 OF 2023 & Connected cases : 64 : 2025:KER:34188 be open to the petitioners to approach the concerned banks or financial institutions which shall revalidate the sale certificate as per law and the petitioners will thereupon be entitled to present the same before the Sub-Registrar, who will file the copy of the revalidated sale certificate in Book No.1, within a period of one month thereafter. If any attachment has been obtained, over any property, which is subject matter of sale, the right of the persons who have obtained attachment will not be foreclosed by this judgment and it will be open to them to pursue their claims in accordance with law.
The writ petitions are disposed of.
Sd/-
MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN JUDGE SRJ WP(C) NO.25722 OF 2023 & Connected cases : 65 : 2025:KER:34188 APPENDIX OF WP(C) 25722/2023 PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS EXHIBIT P 1 TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE OF SALE OF IMMOVABLE PROPERTY ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P 2 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 13.06.2023 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P 2(A) TRUE COPY OF THE POSTAL RECEIPT EVIDENCING SENDING OF THE ABOVE SAID EXT P2.
EXHIBIT P 3 COPY OF THE DECISION MEERA THINKARAN VS STATE OF TAMIL NADU, REPORTED IN MANU/TN/1046/2012. EXHIBIT P 4 COPY OF THE DECISION DATED 01.09.2022 OF THE DIVISION BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT IN SUB REGISTRAR, NEELANGARAI, CHENNAI VSW TRIPOWER ENTERPRISES IN WA NO.633/2022 AND CONNECTED CASES.
EXHIBIT P 5 TRUE COPY OF THE DECISION DATED 20.07.2022 IN INSPECTOR OF GENERAL OF REGISTRATION VS TRIPOWER PROPERTIES PVT LTD IN W.A. NO.589/2022 AND CONNECTED CASES.
EXHIBIT P 6 COPY OF THE ORDER IN SLP(C) NO.16949/2022 AND CONNECTED CASES DATED 11.11.2022 IN INSPECTOR GENERAL OF REGISTRATION AND ANR VS. G MADHURAMBAL &ANR REPORTED IN 2022 LIVE LAW (SC)969).
EXHIBIT P 7 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 20.09.2021 IN M.A NO. 19262/2021 IN SLP(C) NO. 29752/2019 OF THE HON'BLE SUPREM COURT WHICH IS REFERRED TO IN EXT P6 BY THE HON'BLE SUPREM COURT.
WP(C) NO.25722 OF 2023 & Connected cases : 66 : 2025:KER:34188 EXHIBIT P 8 THE RELEVANT PRINT OUT OBTAINED FROM THE HON'BLE SUPREM COURT WEBSITE SHOWING THE DETAILS OF REGISTRATION OF THE SLP (C) NO. 18325/2022 AGAINST EXT P4 JUDGMENT. EXHIBIT P8(a) COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THE MADRAS HIGH COURT IN G. MADHURAMBAL & ANR. VS. THE INSPECTOR GENERAL OF REGISTRATION AND ANOTHER REPORTED IN MANU/TN/8817/2021.
EXHIBIT P-9 COPY OF THE JUDGEMENT OF THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT REPORTED IN 2021(11) SCC 537 (ES JAYPEE IMPEX PVT LTD VS ASSISTANT GENERAL MANAGER AND AUTHORIZED OFFICER, CANARA BANK).
WP(C) NO.25722 OF 2023 & Connected cases : 67 : 2025:KER:34188 APPENDIX OF WP(C) 1930/2023 PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE HOME LOAN AGREEMENT DATED 18.8.2014.
EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE SALE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE 2ND PETITIONER DATED 24.11.2022.
EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE ENCUMBRANCE CERTIFICATE BEARING NO.23746/2022 DATED 2.12.2022. EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY THE 1ST PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 7.12.2022.
EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY LETTER BEARING NO.949/2022 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 23.12.2022.
EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN INSPECTOR GENERAL OF REGISTRATION AND ANOTHER VS. G. MADHURAMMAL REPORTED IN 2022 LIVE LAW (SC) 969 DATED 11.12.2022.
EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER BEARING NO. C 949/2022 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 19.1.2023. WP(C) NO.25722 OF 2023 & Connected cases : 68 : 2025:KER:34188 APPENDIX OF WP(C) 5246/2023 PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS EXHIBIT.P1 TRUE COPY OF THE SALE CERTIFICATE DATED 01/11/2022 TO THE PETITIONER ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT.P2 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 03/02/2023 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT.P3 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 03/02/2023 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT.
WP(C) NO.25722 OF 2023 & Connected cases : 69 : 2025:KER:34188 APPENDIX OF WP(C) 6164/2023 PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE HOME LOAN AGREEMENT DATED 18.9.2019.
EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE SALE CERTIFICATE DATED 8.2.2023. EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE ENCUMBRANCE CERTIFICATE BEARING NO.7641/2021 DATED 12.11.2021. EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY THE 1ST PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 9.2.2023.
EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN THE INSPECTOR GENERAL OF REGISTRATION AND ANOTHER VS. G. MADHURAMMAL AND ANOTHER DATED 11.11.2022. EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT BEARING NO C-20/2023 DATED 20.2.2023. WP(C) NO.25722 OF 2023 & Connected cases : 70 : 2025:KER:34188 APPENDIX OF WP(C) 6290/2023 PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS EXHIBIT.P1 TRUE COPY OF THE SALE CERTIFICATE DATED 02/12/2019 ISSUED BY THE BANK TO THE PETITIONER. EXHIBIT.P2 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN W.P. (C).NO.4654/2022 DATED 01/07/2022 .
EXHIBIT.P3 TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL NO.AU-540483/2022/TDCEKM DATED 18/07/2022 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ERNAKULAM EXHIBIT.P4 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN W.P.(C) NO.27150/2022 DATED 23/08/2022.
EXHIBIT.P5 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 16/02/2023 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT.
WP(C) NO.25722 OF 2023 & Connected cases : 71 : 2025:KER:34188 APPENDIX OF WP(C) 8079/2023 PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS EXHIBIT P1 THE TRUE COPY OF THE SALE CERTIFICATE DATED 30.12.2019 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT AUTHORISED OFFICER TO THE PETITIONER. EXHIBIT P2 THE TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 10.01.2023 ISSUED BY THE BANK FOR HANDING OVER THE POSSESSION OF THE PROPERTY COVERED IN EXT-P1 SALE CERTIFICATE TO THE PETITIONER. EXHIBIT P3 THE TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATE ON 03.03.2023 REQUESTING TO REVALIDATE EXT- P1 SALE CERTIFICATE.
EXHIBIT P4 THE TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT REPORTED IN 2021 (6) KHC 576( KRISHNAN K.V AND OTHERS V. STATE OF KERALA & OTHERS.
EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT REPORTED IN 2022 LIVE LAW (SC) 969 (THE INSPECTOR GENERAL OF REGISTRATION AND ANOTHER VS. G.MADHURAMBAL & ANOTHER).
WP(C) NO.25722 OF 2023 & Connected cases : 72 : 2025:KER:34188 APPENDIX OF WP(C) 11527/2023 PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS EXHIBIT- P1 TRUE COPY OF THE SALE CERTIFICATE DATED 28/02/2023 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT- P2 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 24/03/2023 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT.
WP(C) NO.25722 OF 2023 & Connected cases : 73 : 2025:KER:34188 APPENDIX OF WP(C) 17193/2023 PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS EXHIBIT P1 THE TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE SALE CERTIFICATE DATED 13.02.2023 ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER. EXHIBIT P2 THE TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN INSPECTOR GENERAL OF REGISTRATION VS. G. MADHURAMBAL IN SLP (C) NO.16949/2022 DATED 11.11.2022.
EXHIBIT P3 THE TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 09.03.2023 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE RESPONDENT NO.2.
EXHIBIT P4 THE TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE LETTER UN-DATED ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.2.
WP(C) NO.25722 OF 2023 & Connected cases : 74 : 2025:KER:34188 APPENDIX OF WP(C) 21197/2023 PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE SALE CERTIFICATE DATED 12.06.2023 ISSUED BY THE 3 RD RESPONDENT IN FAVOUR OF THE PETITIONER IS BEING.
WP(C) NO.25722 OF 2023 & Connected cases : 75 : 2025:KER:34188 APPENDIX OF WP(C) 22150/2023 PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS EXHIBIT-P1 TRUE COPY OF THE SALE CERTIFICATE BEARING NO.
REF.ARB/SALE CERTIFICATE/3/2022 DATED 20.09.2022 ISSUED BY THE UNION BANK OF INDIA.
EXHIBIT-P2 TRUE COPY OF THE SALE CERTIFICATE BEARING NO.
REF.ARB/SALE CERTIFICATE/2/2022 DATED 20.09.2022 ISSUED BY THE UNION BANK OF INDIA.
EXHIBIT-P3 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION BEARING NO.
REF: ARB/2022-23/341 DATED 09.01.2023 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT WITH REGARD TO LOTS OF PROPERTIES.
EXHIBIT-P4 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION BEARING NO.
REF: ARB/2022-23/340 DATED 09.01.2023 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT WITH REGARD TO LOTS OF PROPERTIES.
EXHIBIT-P5 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION NO. C22/2023 DATED 18.01.2023 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT-P6 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN SLP(C) NO.16949/2022 DATED 11.11.2022.
WP(C) NO.25722 OF 2023 & Connected cases : 76 : 2025:KER:34188 APPENDIX OF WP(C) 25608/2023 PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS EXHIBIT- P1 TRUE COPY OF THE SALE CERTIFICATE DATED 02/02/2023 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT BANK . EXHIBIT- P2 TRUE COPY OF THE WRITTEN REQUEST SUBMITTED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT ON 04/03/2023 .
EXHIBIT- P3 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 13/04/2023 OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT.
WP(C) NO.25722 OF 2023 & Connected cases : 77 : 2025:KER:34188 APPENDIX OF WP(C) 2891/2024 PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF SALE CERTIFICATE ISSUED AS PER RULE 9(6) OF SARFAESI ACT RULES 2002.
EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 10/01/2024 ENCLOSING EXHIBIT P1 TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
WP(C) NO.25722 OF 2023 & Connected cases : 78 : 2025:KER:34188 APPENDIX OF WP(C) 14650/2024 PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS EXHIBIT P-1 COPY OF THE SALE CERTIFICATE DATED 04.12.2023 ISSUED BY THE 2ND PETITIONER IN FAVOUR OF THE 1 ST PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT P-2 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 04.01.2024 (WRONGLY MENTIONED AS 04.01.2023) SUBMITTED BY THE 2ND PETITIONER BEFORE THE RESPONDENT ALONG WITH POSTAL RECEIPT. EXHIBIT P-2(a) TRUE COPY OF THE SAID REPRESENTATION DATED 26.02.2024 SUBMITTED BY THE 1 ST PETITIONER TO RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P-3 COPY OF THE DECISION DATED 01.09.2022 OF THE DIVISION BENCH OF THE MADRAS HIGH COURT IN SUB REGISTRAR, NEELANGARAI, CHENNAI VS. TRIPOWER ENTERPRISES (PVT.) LTD IN W.A. NO.633/2022 AND CONNECTED CASES REPORTED IN MANU/TN/6621/2022. EXHIBIT P-4 COPY OF THE DECISION DATED 20.07.2022 IN INSPECTOR OF GENERAL OF REGISTRATION VS. TRIPOWER PROPERTIES (PVT) LIMITED IN W.A. NO.589/2022 AND CONNECTED CASES.
EXHIBIT P-5 COPY OF THE ORDER IN SLP(C) NO.16949/2022 AND CONNECTED CASES DATED 11.11.2022 IN INSPECTOR GENERAL OF REGISTRATION AND ANR VS. G. MADHURAMBAL & ANR. (ALSO REPORTED IN MANU/SCOR/112533/2022).
EXHIBIT P-6 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 29.10.2021 IN M.A. NO.19262/2021 IN SLP (C) NO.29752/2019 OF THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT.
EXHIBIT P-7 RELEVANT PRINT OUT OBTAINED FROM THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT WEBSITE SHOWING THE DETAILS OF REGISTRATION OF THE SLP (C) NO.18325/2022 AGAINST EXT-P4.
WP(C) NO.25722 OF 2023 & Connected cases : 79 : 2025:KER:34188 EXHIBIT P-8 COPY OF JUDGMENT OF THE MADRAS HIGH COURT IN G. MADHURAMBAL & ANR. VS. THE INSPECTOR GENERAL OF REGISTRATION AND ANOTHER REPORTED IN MANU/TN/ 8817/2021 DATED 22.11.2021. EXHIBIT P-9 COPY OF JUDGMENT OF THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT REPORTED IN ES JAYPEE IMPEX PVT. LTD VS. ASSISTANT GENERAL MANAGER AND AUTHORIZED OFFICER, CANARA BANK REPORTED IN MANU/SC/0265/2021 DATED 05.01.2021. EXHIBIT P-10 COPY OF JUDGMENT OF THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN HALDIRAM INCORPORATION PVT. LTD. V. AMRIT HATCHERIES PVT. LTD. REPORTED IN 2023 KHC 7278.