MGM POOJA BUILDTECH PRIVATE LIMITED Vs. CHIEF MANAGER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Endorsement Annexure-G dated 22.2.2013 issued by the Sub-Registrar, Mysore North, Mysore is called in question in this writ petition. The said Endorsement mentions that the sale certificate presented under Section- 89 of the Registration Act, 1908 ('the Act' for short is time barred and therefore the same cannot be accepted. The records reveal that the petitioner purchased the property bearing Plot No. 108 of Metagalli, K.R.S. Road, Mysore measuring 39 meters x 104 meters (4,056 square meters) in public auction conducted by Respondent No. 1-bank in terms of the provisions of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002. The purchase was made in the auction for Rs. 80,91,000/-. Consequently, the first respondent-bank issued a sale certificate on 27.4.2010 in favour of the petitioner as per Annexure-A.

(2.) It is the case of the petitioner that the authorized officer of the bank forwarded a letter alongwith the sale certificate dated 27.4.2010 to the Sub-Registrar, Mysore for making necessary entry in Book No. I in terms of Section- 89(4) of the Act; though the sale certificate was sent by the first respondent, the same was not filed in Book No. I as per Section- 89 of the Act. Copy of the letter addressed to the Sub-Registrar, Mysore by the first respondent-bank is also forwarded to the petitioner on 27.4.2010 itself; the petitioner was under the bonafide impression that the sale certificate is duly filed in Book No. I as contemplated under Section- 89(4) of the Act; but to his dismay, the petitioner found that the sale certificate issued in his favour sent by the first respondent to the second respondent is not filed in Book No. I maintained by the second respondent; thereafter the petitioner himself made attempt to submit copy of the sale certificate before the second respondent; but the second respondent has refused to receive the sale certificate and file the same in Book No. I on the ground that the time for presenting the document as contemplated under Section- 23 of the Act has expired.

(3.) Sri Srikanth Patil, learned advocate for the petitioner taking the Court to the relevant provisions under the Registration Act and the Stamp Act, contends that it is the duty of the second respondent to file copy of the sale certificate in Book No. I maintained by the second respondent under Section- 89(4) of the Act; since the sale certificate in question is not compulsorily registrable document under Section- 17 of the Act, it is not open for the Respondent No. 2 to reject the prayer of the petitioner.