SUB REGISTRAR ERNAKULAM Vs. C M NADIRSHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner is an auction purchaser of an extent of 6-852 cents in Sy. No. 84/3 in Elamkulam Village in Kanayannoor Taluk along with a building t herein. Sale certificate was issued by Ext. P-1. A copy of the sale certificate was forwarded to the first respondent Sub Registrar by the second respondent Recovery Officer to file the same in Book No. 1 as per Section 89(4) of the Indian Registration Act, hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'. But the same was sent back by the first respondent to the second respondent stating that as per clause 16 of the Schedule to the Kerala Stamp Act the sale certificate is to be prepared in stamp paper worth Rs. 1,17,300. Challenging that view the writ petition was filed.

(2.) The learned Single Judge relying on the decision of the Apex Court in Santhi Devi L. Singh v. Tax Recovery Officer and others (1990) 3 S.C.C. 605 held that sale certificate is not a compulsorily registrable document and filing of a copy of the sale certificate in Book No. 1 under Section 89 (4) of the Act does not amount to registration of the document. It is true that filing of the sale certificate in Book No. 1 will not put the purchaser at court or revenue sale under any disadvantage, even if it is not registered. But merely because the certificate of sale was not compulsorily registrable, there is no vitiating circumstance in the transfer of title. Learned Judge also held that in view of the decision in Santhi Devi's case, registration charges are not payable and the Registration Officer has to act in terms of Section 89(4) of the Act read with Rule 21 of the ITCP Rules. The learned Judge also noticed that similar orders were passed in other cases and therefore, a direction was issued to file the sale certificate in Book No. 1 as requested by the petitioner, in terms of Section 89(4) of the Act read with Rule 21 of the ITCP Rules. This is challenged by the State in the writ appeal.

(3.) In Santhi Devi's case the question decided was whether the sale certificate forwarded under Section 89(4) of the Act is not a compulsorily registrable document and filing of a copy of the same in Book No.1 under Section 89 (4) of the Act does not amount to registration of the document and therefore, no registration charges can be collected. The question whether the certificate of sale is liable to be stamped was not decided. With regard to that point the Honourable Supreme Court held as follows: