Madras High Court
The Inspector General Of Registration vs M/S.Tripower Properties Limited on 20 July, 2022
Author: Munishwar Nath Bhandari
Bench: Munishwar Nath Bhandari
W.A.Nos.589, 681 and 746 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 20.07.2022
CORAM :
THE HON'BLE MR.MUNISHWAR NATH BHANDARI, CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE N.MALA
W.A.Nos.589, 681 and 746 of 2022
and C.M.P.Nos.4193, 4720, 5214 of 2022
1. The Inspector General of Registration,
100, Santhome High Road,
Chennai 600 028. ... 1st Appellant in all WAs.
2. The Sub Registrar,
Tenkasi SRO,
Tenkasi District. ... 2nd Appellant in WA.589/2022
2. The Sub Registrar,
T.Nagar SRO, Registration
District of Chennai South,
No.9, Jeenis Road, Saidapet,
Chennai 600 015. ... 2nd Appellant in WA.681/2022
2. The Sub Registrar,
Chennai Central Joint-I SRO,
No.182, Bharathi Salai
(Pycrofts Road), Royapettah,
Chennai 600 014. ... 2nd Appellant in WA.746/2022
vs
1. M/s.Tripower Properties Limited,
Rep. by its Director, No.2/569, Sandy Nook,
Singaravellar 1st Main Road,
Chinna Neelangarai,
Chennai 600 015. ... 1st Respondent in WA.589/2022
____________
Page 1 of 18
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.Nos.589, 681 and 746 of 2022
1. G.Madhurambal ... 1st Respondent in WA.681/2022
1. V.Krishnamoorthy ... 1st Respondent in WA.746/2022
2. The Secretary cum Co-ordinator
Administrator Committee of Disc
Assets Lead (India) Ltd.,
119, Canal Bank Road, CIT Nagar,
Chennai 600 035. ... 2nd Respondent in all WAs.
Prayer: Appeals filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent Act
against the order dated 17.11.2021 in W.P.No.20769 of 2021; order
dated 22.11.2021 in WP No.24821 of 2021; and order dated
17.11.2021 in W.P.No.20639 of 2021 on the file of this Court.
For the Appellants : Mr.Neelakantan
Addl. Adv. General
assisted by Mr.Yogesh
Kannadasan, Spl.G.P. (Regn.)
For the 1st Respondent For Mr.P.Krishnan,
in WA.589/2022 : Mr.V.Raghavachari
in WA.681/2022 : Mr.V.Shreeyash Uday Lalit
in WA.746/2022 : Mr.N.Manogaran
*****
____________
Page 2 of 18
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.Nos.589, 681 and 746 of 2022
JUDGMENT
(Delivered by the Hon'ble Chief Justice) The writ appeals have been filed against the orders dated 17.11.2021, 22.11.2021 and 17.11.2021 by which the writ petitions preferred by the first respondent herein were allowed.
2. The writ petitions were filed to seek a direction on the writ appellants to file the sale certificates in Book No.1 as per Section 89(2) or 89(4) of the Registration Act, 1908 [for brevity, “the Act of 1908”]. The writ petitions have been allowed by the learned Single Judge with a direction to the writ appellants to file the copy of the sale certificates in his Book No.1 under Section 89(4) of the Act of 1908.
3. The judgment of the learned Single Judge has been challenged mainly on the ground that Section 89(4) of the Act of 1908 applies only when the sale certificate is issued by the Revenue officer. In the instant case, the sale certificates were not issued by the Revenue officer, yet, a direction for filing a copy in Book No.1 has been given. The challenge to the judgment has been made precisely on that ground. It is stated that the documents cannot be kept in ____________ Page 3 of 18 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.Nos.589, 681 and 746 of 2022 Book No.1 unless it is stamped. The registration of the documents can be made only when the required stamp duty is paid whereas in the case in hand, without the payment of stamp duty, a direction has been given to keep the copy of sale certificates on the file of Book No.1 and therefore, appeals have been preferred to assail the orders of the learned Single Judge.
4. To appreciate the argument, we have gone through the record and find that one Disc Assets Lead (India) Ltd. dealing with investments, received funds from investors, but committed default in repayments, and therefore, the investors filed writ petition, being W.P.No.8084 of 2017, for appointment of an Administrator Committee. After the arguments, this Court appointed the Administrator Committee, the second respondent herein, to proceed with the sale of properties and deposit the sale proceeds. In pursuance of the auction sale notice dated 04.02.2020 by the Administrator Committee, the first respondent/writ petitioners remain successful bidders in the auction held on 06.03.2020. After its confirmation, the entire sale proceeds, after deducting the TDS amount, was deposited and sale certificates were issued. The copy of the sale certificates was sent to the office of the second appellant for ____________ Page 4 of 18 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.Nos.589, 681 and 746 of 2022 filing in Book No.1 as per Section 89 of the Act of 1908. The second appellant refused to keep the sale certificates on the file of Book No.1 in the absence of payment of stamp duty, thus, the writ petitions were filed.
5. The learned Single Judge, after appreciating the arguments, found reasons to direct the writ appellants to file the copy of the sale certificates in Book No.1. It is after taking note of the fact that the auction of the property was conducted under the orders of the court and therefore, with the issuance of sale certificate and sending it to the registering officer, Section 89(4) of the Act of 1908 would apply and accordingly, the sale certificates need to be filed in Book No.1. When the sale certificate is issued by the Court and sent to the Registrar or the Registering Officer within whose limits the auction was conducted, such officer shall file the copy of the certificate in his Book No.1. It is not presented by the purchaser so as to demand stamp duty for registration. The writ appellants got confused on account of their failure to make distinction between the presentation of the document by the purchaser for registration requiring stamp duty and the forwarding of a copy of the sale certificate by the Court to keep it on the file of Book No.1.
____________ Page 5 of 18 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.Nos.589, 681 and 746 of 2022
6. The learned Single Judge relied upon the judgment of this court in the case of N.Naresh Kumar vs. The Inspector General of Registration, 2018 (3) TNCJ 541 MB. The relevant paras of the said judgment are quoted hereunder for ready reference:
"15.Therefore, the refusal by the Sub Registrar to file sale certificate issued by the Recovery Officer by making necessary entries in the Book in accordance with sub- section (4) of Section 89 of the Registration Act is not justified. The copy of the sale certificate thus filed in Book No.1 which contains all the relevant details and all that is the Sub Registrar is required to do is to file a copy of the certificate in Book No.1 and nothing more.
16.In B.Arvind Kumar Vs.Government of India and others reported in JT 2007 (8) SC 602, it is held that a property sold in public auction pursuant to an order of the Court and once the sale is confirmed it becomes absolute and the title vests with the auction purchaser. The subsequent sale certificate issued to the purchaser is the evidence of such title which does not require registration under Section 17(2) (xii) of the Registration Act. In the case on hand also the property was purchased in public auction on 16.05.2008 and the sale certificate was issued on 31.08.2008. Therefore, the appellant/purchaser automatically becomes title holder of the property by ____________ Page 6 of 18 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.Nos.589, 681 and 746 of 2022 virtue of the sale certificate. The payment of stamp duty on the sale certificate is not warranted as it is only a sale certificate issued which has to be filed or scanned in Book No.1 as per Section 89(4) of the Registration Act.
17.The payment of stamp duty perhaps may arise only when the appellant wants to deal with the property by selling it. As long as the sale certificate remains as it is, it is not compulsorily registrable. If the appellant uses the document for any other purpose, then the requirement of stamp duty etc., would arise. Hence, the plea of the appellant is well within the statutory powers. Section 89(4) contemplates only filing of the sale certificates and therefore, the question of delay or laches on the part of the appellant does not arise. The dismissal of the writ petition on the ground of delay and payment of stamp duty therefor does not arise and therefore, cannot be sustained. Accordingly, the order passed in the writ petition is set aside and the appeal is allowed. No costs."
7. The judgment supra was given after referring to Section 17(2)(xii) and Section 89(4) of the Act of 1908. It would be gainful to quote the provisions aforesaid hereunder:
“17. Documents of which registration is compulsory.— (1) ...
____________ Page 7 of 18 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.Nos.589, 681 and 746 of 2022 (1A) ...
(2) Nothing in clauses (b) and (c) of sub-section (1) applies to—
(i) any composition deed; or
(ii) any instrument relating to shares in a joint stock Company, notwithstanding that the assets of such Company consist in whole or in part of immovable property; or
(iii) any debenture issued by any such Company and not creating, declaring, assigning, limiting or extinguishing any right, title or interest, to or in immovable property except in so far as it entitles the holder to the security afforded by a registered instrument whereby the Company has mortgaged, conveyed or otherwise transferred the whole or part of its immovable property or any interest therein to trustees upon trust for the benefit of the holders of such debentures; or
(iv) any endorsement upon or transfer of any debenture issued by any such Company; or
(v) any document other than the documents specified in sub-section (1A) not itself creating, declaring, assigning, limiting or extinguishing any right, title or interest of the value of one hundred rupees and upwards to or in immovable property, but merely creating a right to obtain another document which will, when executed, create, declare, assign, limit or extinguish any such right, title or interest; or ____________ Page 8 of 18 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.Nos.589, 681 and 746 of 2022
(vi) any decree or order of a Court except a decree or order expressed to be made on a compromise and comprising immovable property other than that which is the subject-matter of the suit or proceeding; or
(vii) any grant of immovable property by Government; or
(viii) any instrument of partition made by a Revenue- Officer; or
(ix) any order granting a loan or instrument of collateral security granted under the Land Improvement Act, 1871, or the Land Improvement Loans Act, 1883; or
(x) any order granting a loan under the Agriculturists, Loans Act, 1884, or instrument for securing the repayment of a loan made under that Act; (xa) any order made under the Charitable Endowments Act, 1890 (6 of 1890), vesting any property in a Treasurer of Charitable Endowments or divesting any such Treasurer of any property; or
(xi) any endorsement on a mortgage-deed acknowledging the payment of the whole or any part of the mortgage-money, and any other receipt for payment of money due under a mortgage when the receipt does not purport to extinguish the mortgage; or
(xii) any certificate of sale granted to the purchaser of any property sold by public auction by a Civil or Revenue-Officer.
____________ Page 9 of 18 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.Nos.589, 681 and 746 of 2022 Explanation.—A document purporting or operating to effect a contract for the sale of immovable property shall not be deemed to require or ever to have required registration by reason only of the fact that such document contains a recital of the payment of any earnest money or of the whole or any part of the purchase money.” “89. Copies of certain orders, certificates and instruments to be sent to registering officers and filed.— (1) Every officer granting a loan under the Land Improvement Loans Act, 1883 (19 of 1883), shall send a copy of his order to the registering officer within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the whole or any part of the land to be improved or of the land to be granted as collateral security, is situate, and such registering officer shall file the copy in his Book No. 1. (2) Every Court granting a certificate of sale of immovable property under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908), shall send a copy of such certificate to the registering officer within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the whole or any part of the immovable property comprised in such certificate is situate, and such officer shall file the copy in his Book No. 1.
(3) Every officer granting a loan under the Agriculturists’ Loans Act, 1884 (12 of 1884), shall send ____________ Page 10 of 18 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.Nos.589, 681 and 746 of 2022 a copy of any instrument whereby immovable property is mortgaged for the purpose of securing the repayment of the loan, and, if any such property is mortgaged for the same purpose in the order granting the loan, a copy also or that order, to the registering officer within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the whole or any part of the property so mortgaged is situate, and such registering officer shall file the copy or copies as the case may be, in his Book No. 1. (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.” [emphasis supplied]
8. Section 89 of the Act of 1908 provides for sending copies of certain orders, certificates and instruments to the registering officers. The purpose of Section 89 of the Act of 1908 is different than as understood by the appellants. It is not for registration of document requiring stamp duty and keeping a copy of the sale certificate on the file of Book No.1. The document therein is not presented by the ____________ Page 11 of 18 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.Nos.589, 681 and 746 of 2022 purchaser, but sent by the court or the Revenue Officer. The judgment in N.Naresh Kumar, supra, makes it clear that it does not amount to registration, rather if the document is to be used for sale or any other purpose, stamp duty is to be paid for registration of the document at that stage. Section 17(2)(xii) of the Act of 1908 excluded document from compulsory registration if the certificate of sale is granted to the purchaser by the Civil or Revenue Officer.
9. In the case of B.Arvind Kumar v. Government of India and others, (2007) 5 SCC 745, the Apex Court thus gave a reference of Section 17(2)(xii) of the Act of 1908 to indicate that a sale certificate does not require compulsory registration and for that no separate deed is to be executed.
10. The writ petitions were filed when the sale certificate sent to the registering officer was not filed in Book No.1 on the ground that stamp duty has not been paid. The appellants have failed to understand the import of Sections 17(2)(xii) and 89 of the Act of 1908, which does not require registration of sale certificate, but for filing a copy in Book No.1. At this stage, it is necessary to clarify that the court granting certificate of sale would fall under Section ____________ Page 12 of 18 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.Nos.589, 681 and 746 of 2022 89(2) of the Act of 1908, while if it is granted by the Revenue officer, it would be under Section 89(4) of the Act of 1908 and the case on hand would fall under Section 89(2) and not under Section 89(4) of the Act of 1908.
11. We may also give a reference of Rule 200(1) of the Civil Rules of Practice and Circular Orders, which reads as under:
"200(1). Section 89(2) of the Indian Registration Act, 1908 (Central Act XVI of 1908) provides that the every Court granting a certificate under Rule 94 of Order XXI of the Code, shall send a copy of such certificate to the registering officer within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the whole or any part of the immovable property comprised in such certificate is situate and such officer shall file the copy in his Book No.1. The law, therefore now provides, through the direct action of the Civil Court and of the Registering Officer for the registration of a copy of the certificate of sale. It is no longer necessary to register the certificate itself. Such certificates do not operate as a conveyance of the property to which they relate."
12. The Division Bench of this Court in the case of N.Naresh Kumar, supra, has already highlighted the consequence of filing of ____________ Page 13 of 18 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.Nos.589, 681 and 746 of 2022 document in Book No.1 and, therefore, we do not find any reason to deny filing of the sale certificate in his Book No.1. To fortify the aforesaid, a reference of the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Som Dev v. Rati Ram, (2006) 10 SCC 788 would also be relevant, wherein a reference of Section 17(2)(vi) of the Act of 1908 was given to indicate as to whether the document is compulsorily registrable. It was held that the sale certificate is not such a document which needs compulsory registration. The aforesaid view was reiterated by the Apex Court in the case of B.Arvind Kumar, supra.
13. In view of the above, the action of the appellants to demand stamp duty to keep a copy of the sale certificate on the file of Book No.1 is going against the statutory mandate and the law enunciated by the Apex Court and this Court.
14. An argument has been made even in reference to Sections 89(2) and 89(4) of the Act of 1908 to submit that the documents sent other than by the court and the revenue officer would not be covered by the provision aforesaid. It is also when the court granting the sale certificate should be under the Code of Civil Procedure. ____________ Page 14 of 18 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.Nos.589, 681 and 746 of 2022
15. We have considered the aforesaid aspect also and find that after auction of the property under the direction of the court, when a sale certificate is issued by the court and sent to the registering authority, then he is under an obligation to file the copy of such sale certificate in Book No.1. As and when the sale certificate is sent by the court, the case would fall under Section 89(2) of the Act of 1908, while in case the sale certificate is sent by the revenue officer, it would fall under Section 89(4) of the Act of 1908. The word “Revenue Officer” has not been defined under the Act of 1908 and, therefore, much emphasis is made that the provision of Section 89(4) of the Act of 1908 would not apply in this case. In the case on hand, the sale certificate has been issued by the court and, therefore, the matter would fall under Section 89(2) and not under Section 89(4) of the Act of 1908. The writ appellants have even ignored Section 17(2)(xii) which excludes sale certificate from compulsory registration if granted by the Civil or Revenue officer. In a case where certificate is granted by the Civil officer apart from Revenue Officer, registration would not be compulsory, thus till it is not presented for registration, the question of stamp duty would not arise. It would be true that as per Section 35 of the Indian Stamp ____________ Page 15 of 18 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.Nos.589, 681 and 746 of 2022 Act, 1899 such document would not be admissible in evidence.
16. We are not otherwise required to traverse the issue as to what would be the consequence of keeping the sale certificate on the file of Book No.1. The issue before us is limited as to whether the appellants were justified in not filing the sale certificate sent by the Court under Section 89(2) of the Act of 1908 in Book No.1. The answer would obviously be adverse to the writ appellants. We do not find any error in the judgment of the learned Single Judge directing the writ appellants to keep the sale certificates in Book No.1, though not under Section 89(4) of the Act of 1908 in this case, but as contemplated under Section 89(2) of the Act of 1908.
Accordingly, we find no merit in the writ appeals and are dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
(M.N.B., CJ.) (N.M., J.) 20.07.2022 Index : Yes/No sra ____________ Page 16 of 18 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.Nos.589, 681 and 746 of 2022 To
1. The Inspector General of Registration, 100, Santhome High Road, Chennai 600 028.
2. The Sub Registrar, Tenkasi SRO, Tenkasi District.
3. The Sub Registrar, T.Nagar SRO, Registration District of Chennai South, No.9, Jeenis Road, Saidapet, Chennai 600 015.
4. The Sub Registrar, Chennai Central Joint-I SRO, No.182, Bharathi Salai (Pycrofts Road), Royapettah, Chennai 600 014.
5. The Secretary cum Co-ordinator Administrator Committee of Disc Assets Lead (India) Ltd., 119, Canal Bank Road, CIT Nagar, Chennai 600 035.
____________ Page 17 of 18 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.Nos.589, 681 and 746 of 2022 M.N.Bhandari, CJ.
and N.Mala, J.
(sra) W.A.Nos.589, 681 and 746 of 2022 20.07.2022 ____________ Page 18 of 18 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis