JOSE ANTONY THOTTASSERY Vs. SUB REGISTRAR, THIRUVALLA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner purchased property having an extent of 18.40 Ares (45.448 cents) in Re-Sy.Nos.133/4 and 133/4-1 of Kavumbhagom Village, Thiruvalla, and the buildings thereon as per the sale certificate dtd. 11/9/2009 issued under the provisions of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act) and Security interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002. The properties originally belonged to respondents 5 and 6, who had mortgaged the same with the 2nd respondent. Ext.P1 dtd. 11/9/2009 is the sale certificate issued pursuant to the auction. After the mortgage, the 5th respondent had executed two sale deeds in favour of the 4th respondent, which took in 16.350 cents of property out of the extent of 45.448 cents situated to the southern side. The sale deeds are dtd. 29/7/2005 and 30/6/2007, respectively. The 4th respondent thereafter filed a suit before the Munsiff Court, Thiruvalla, praying for an injunction restraining the 5th respondent from trespassing on the property. The suit was transferred to the Sub Court, Thiruvalla, and renumbered as O.S.No.77 of 2009. The 5th respondent filed O.S.No.155 of 2008 before Sub Court, Thiruvalla, seeking to cancel the sale deeds, declaring them as void and for other reliefs. The Sub Court considered both the suits jointly and, by order dtd. 20/12/2008, directed the parties to maintain the status quo.

(2.) While so, as there was default in repaying the instalments, the 2nd respondent on 25/1/2007 classified the loan as a Non-Performing Asset under the SARFAESI Act and initiated steps under Sec. 13 of the Act for enforcement of security interest. The respondents 5 and 6 approached the petitioner for private sale under the SARFAESI Act and Rules with the consent of the bank. Pursuant to the directions of this Court in W.P.(C) 20274 of 2009, directing the bank to consider the possibility of private sale, the bank sold the entire property to the petitioner. The 4th respondent filed SA No.187 of 2010 before the Debt Recovery Tribunal (DRT), Ernakulam, seeking to set aside Ext.P1 sale certificate. The Tribunal passed Ext.P2 interim order on 8/3/2010 in IA No.729 of 2010 in SA No.187/2010, directing parties to maintain the status quo. SA No.187 of 2010 was renumbered as TSA No.118 of 2016 by DRT-II, Ernakulam. Since the same issue was pending before the Sub Court, Thiruvalla, and the DRT, the petitioner approached this Court filing OP(C)No.2136 of 2011 to transfer the suit from the Sub Court to the DRT, Ernakulam or to stay proceedings in the civil suit pending disposal of the application by the DRT. This Court directed that the proceedings in the civil suit in Sub Court, Thiruvalla should be kept in abeyance and further directed the DRT to dispose of the application as early as possible.

(3.) When there was a delay in the disposal of the case, the petitioner filed O.P(DRT) No. 22 of 2020 before this Court, seeking a time-bound disposal of the application pending before DRT. Pending the litigation, respondents 1 and 3 did not take steps to comply with the procedure for filing a copy of the sale certificate in Book No.1 in terms of Sec. 89(4) of the Registration Act due to Ext.P2 order. This prevented the petitioner from enjoying the property since the purchase in 2009. On 6/8/2022, the DRT II, Ernakulam, as per Ext.P5, dismissed TSA No.118/2016, finding that the claim by the 4th respondent is not maintainable. The 4th respondent approached this Court in W.P(C) No.26794/2022, and this Court inter alia directed the bank to register the sale certificate in favor of the petitioner, subject to any orders that may be passed by the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal. The petitioner purchased stamp paper worth Rs.72,000.00 for engrossing the sale certificate for registration. The entire transaction was performed in the year 2009, and Ext.P1 was issued on 11/9/2009. The certificate was revalidated by the 3rd respondent by issuing a sale certificate afresh on 22/9/2022, engrossing on the stamp paper, specifically mentioning that the entire amount of Rs.9,00,000.00 was paid on 8/9/2009. The fee prescribed for registration was also deposited by the petitioner. Ext.P7 is the copy of the sale certificate engrossed on the stamp paper. A portion of property covered by Ext.P1 sale certificate, which is not a subject matter in the litigation, is already mutated in the name of the petitioner, and tax is being paid as is evidenced by Ext.P8. The 1st respondent, however, issued Ext.P9 notice dtd. 30/9/2022, demanding additional stamp duty based on the fair value and value of the building for the purpose of registering the document. The writ petition has been filed challenging the demand for additional stamp duty.