S.SUKUMARI Vs. INSPECTOR GENERAL OF REGISTRATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is aggrieved against the action of the Registering Authority viz., the 3rd respondent in refusing to register the two settlement deeds executed by her in favour of her mother and brother in respect of half share each in the subject matter property.

(2.) The 3rd respondent/Registering Authority refused to register on the reason that the petitioner's name is not reflected in the Encumbrance Certificate and that the sale certificate produced by the Settlor/ petitioner herein has neither been engrossed on the required stamp duty nor paid to the instrument under Indian Stamp Act , 1899. In other words, the main objection raised by the Registering Authority is that the sale certificate issued by this Court in favour of the petitioner has not been registered.

(3.) It is seen that the petitioner purchased the subject matter property in Court auction and a sale certificate dtd. 27/8/2013 has been issued by this Court to that effect in respect of the subject matter property. The question as to whether such sale certificate is compulsorily registrable or not has already been considered by this Court in W.P.No.23618 of 2012 and W.P.No.25268 of 2012 dtd. 24/2/2014 reported in 2014 (4) MLJ 594 (D.B.Prakashchand Jain vs. R.Ramesh) by observing as follows: 10. The crux of the issue is as to whether the Sale Certificate issued by the Mumbai Debts Recovery Tribunal requires registration. 11. In this connection, the decision relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioner reported in (2007) 5 SCC 745, (cited supra) is relevant to be quoted, since the said decision answers the above issue. At paragraph No. 12 of the said decision, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed as follows: