Limited v. Sub Registrar, Peddapatti and Ors.,r and the same is followed. by another Divisio

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a WRIT, order or direction more particularly one in the nature Writ of Mandamus declaring the. action of the Respondent No.3 in not deleting the subject mortgage property i.e., all that house property bearing H.No.16- 174t1, in Plot No.21lPart in Survey No.49, 50 and 51/A, admeasuring 70.0 Sq.Yds, situaterj at Brahmangari Veedhi, Wanaparthy Town and District, from the prohibitory list irs illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the provisions of Registration Act and violative of Article 14 of Constitution of lndia and consequently direct the Respondent N,1.3 delete the subject mortgage property i'e', all that house property bearirrg H.No. 16-174t1, in Plot No.21 tPart in Survey No'49, 50 and 51/A, admeasuring 70.0 Sq.Yds, situated at Brahmangari Veedhi, wanaparthy Town and District, from the prohibitory list and registrar the sale deed in favour of the successful lridder forthwith pending disposal of the above Writ Petition. lA NO: 1 OF 2021 petition lnder Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit tiled in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased To direct the Resprondent No.3 to delete the subject mortgage property i.e., all that house property bearing H.No.16-17411, in Plot No.21lPart in Survey No.49,50 and 511A, aclmeasuring 70.0 Sq.Yds, situated at Brahmangari Veedhi, Wanaparthy T6wn and District, from the prohibitory list and registrar the sale deed in favour of the successful bidder forthwith pending disposal of the above Writ Petition. Counsel for th,r Petitioner: SRI VIKRAM RAGI counsel for th,e Respondents No 1 To 3: AGP FOR STAMPSAN?*^,.* Counsel for the Respondents No 4 To 6: ---' The Court macle the following: ORDER ai{. \ THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SARATH WRIT PETITION No.16004 of 2025 ORDER: Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Stamps and Registration appearing for the respondent Nos.1 to 3 and Sri P. Durga Prasad, learned counsel for the respondent No.6 and perused the material on record.

2. The personal notice sent to the respondent Nos.4 and 5 was returned with an endorsement that 'addressee left without instructions' and in view of the same, service of notice sent to the respondent Nos.4 and 5 deemed to be served.

3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is questioning the action of the respondent No.3 in not deleting the subject mortgage property i.e., house property bearing H.No. 16- 174 / L in Plot No.2 I lPart in Sy.Nos.49, 50 and 5L I A admeasuring 7O.O sq. yards situated at Brahmangari Veedtri, Wanaparthy Town and District from the prohibitory list /.,, :a:lr:'/' ,,.'., , . I i:r?-ll ,, .- ,..'l;\.:*l - . .:':'!:it:f 2 SK, J W.P.No.16004 of 2025 as illegal and arbitrary and consequently direct th.e respondent No.3 to delete the subject mortgage property from the protribitory list and register the sale deed in favour of the successful bidder

4. L:arned counsel for the petitioner further submits that th.e respondent Nos.4 and 5 have obtained housing loan cf an amount of Rs. 12,50,000/- vide Customer ID:AP/HDB/MBNR/4.000000129 Sanction Letter dated 30.04.2017 from the petitioner Company by mortgerging the subject house property of the respondent No.S try way of registered Memorandum of Deposit of Title l)eed vide Doc.No.6496l2ol7 ctated 09.06.2017 registered in the office of the Sub-Registrar, Wanaparthy,

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that in view of default in payment, the petitioner- Company initiated proceedings under provisions of Sectio:r L4 of SARFAESI Act and took over the posses,sion of the property and later the petitioner- Compzrny brought the mortgaged property for auction by a 'i I i i I i \ \ 3 SK, J W.P.No.16004 of 2025 way of paper publication mentioning the date of auction on 25.LL.2024. As the subject property is reflected in prohibitory list of the Sub-Registrar, Wanaparthy, the interested buyers did not participate in the auction and withdrawn from auction. He further submits that the respondent No.6 fiied ARB No. 1 9 | / 2021 before the Deputy Registrar of Chits/Arbitrator, Mahabubnagar against one Md. Chand Pash and others for claim of Rs. 15,29,9621 - and the Deputy Registrar of Chits/Arbitrator, Mahabubnagar, has passed order in I.A.No. L9 /2021 in ARB No. 191 of 2021 attaching the subject mortgage property of the respondent No.S, who is the respondent No.6 in ARB No. 191 of 2021, and directed the respondent No.3 to enter the same in EC DATA and pursuant the said orders, the subject mortgaged property was incorporated in the prohibitory

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the action of respondent No.3 is contrar5r to the Orders passed by this Court in Citg (Inion Bank x \ / 4 SK, J W.P.No.16004 of 2025 Limited Vs Sub Registrar, Peddapatti and Ors.,r and the same is followed. by another Division Bench of this court in w.P.No.38125 of 2oL8 dated 14.to.2otg and requested to direct the respondent No.3 to register the sale de ed to be issued in favour of the successful bidder.

7. on the other hand, learned Assistant Government Pleade:: for stamps and Registration submits that as per the or<lers of the Deputy Registrar of chits/Arbitrator, Mahabubanagar in I.A.No.19 of 2021 in ARB No.191 of 2o2L <lated lo.o8.2o2l, the respondents herein have enterecl the subject property in prohibitory list and in view of'the provisions of the Registration Act, 190g, the respon'1ent No.3- The sub-Registrar, wanaparthy is not empowered to delete the subject property from the prohibitory list and requested to dismiss the writ petition

8. Le:arned counsel for the respondent No.6 has not disputed the orders passed by this court in citg union Bank t'.imtted's case (1 supra), but requested to direct ' zora 1s; ALT 279 t \ t-.a 5 SK, J W.P.No.16004 of 2025 the petitioner, if after adjustment of the entire loan amount, any surplus money remains out of the auction sale proceeds, shall pay to the respondent No.6 and he relied on the order passed by a Division Bench of this Court in W.P.No.22518 of 2024 dated 12.12.2024.

9. After hearing both sides and perusing the material on record, this Court is of the considered view that there is no dispute with regard to the mortgage of the subject property by the respondent Nos.4 and 5 with the petitioner Company and in view of their default 1n payment of loan amount, the petitioner by following due procedure contemplated under SARFAtrSI Act brought the subject property for auction, however, &S the property was incorporated in the prohibitory list, the interest buyers did not participate in the auction and withdrawn from the auction. Now the respondent No.3 refused to delete the subject property from the prohibitory list on the pretext of the attachment order in I.A.No.19 of 2O2l in ARB No. 191l2O2l dated 10.08.202.! tn favour of the respondent No.6. The \ \ :.'"-' 7 I 6 SK, J W.P.No.16004 of 2025 said contention of respondent No.3 is contrary to the Ordersr passed by this Court in Citg Union Bank Limitetd Vs Sub Registrar, Peddapalli and Ors (suprat 7).

10. The relevant portion of the Judgment in Citg tlnion Bank Limited 7s Sub Registrar, Peddapalli and Ors. (supra'. I/ is as follows: "8. It is needless to obserue that the ciuil Court hc.s no juris;diction to deal with subject matters pertaining to the SAfi'FAESI Act. In the present scenario, the seanred creditor was not a party to the ciuil suits before the Courts below and thus the orders of attachment before judgment are not binc'.ing on the secured creditor/ Bank. More so, the cause of acti<>n before the CourTs belou is not within the ambit of SAfiFAESIAct.

10. Uporu fair reading of S.O. 219 in the light of Section 64 of CPC', this Court is of the uiew that it only pertains to a ciuil disp,ute between the priuate parties and it does not include an ,'.nstitutional sale under a statute. Though Section 64 com"s into plag onlg after tlrc alienation of the propertg und,zr attachment amongst the priuate persons, the said legal position does not create an embargo upon the Reglstrar to proceed with ttrc registration of sale certificates unde,r fue SARFAESI Act as the bank is not a party to the suit and the sale is not be.ing effected bA a parlA to the atta':hment order.

12. tn similar circumstances, the Kerala High Court in The South Indian Bank Ltd. u. Tle Sub Registrar (3) WP (C) No. 387.5 of 2017 dated 24.11.2076, considered tlte question whether a sale certift.cate is liabte to be registered or not in uieu, of the order of attachment before judgment passed. bg th-e ciuil court and held that the secured cred.itor is entitled. to Ttroceed with the registration and" the Registration \ I { ,i 7 SK, J W.P.No. L6O04 of 2025 Authority cannot stall the process of registratioru under the garb of an order of attachment passed by tlrc ciuil Court." The above said finding of the Division Bench of this Court would squarely apply to the instant case and the Registration Authority cannot stall the process of registration of the petitioner-Company in view of the attachment orders.

11. The relevant portion in para Nos.3 and 4 of the order relied on by the learned counsel for the respondent No.6 in W.P.No.225l8 of 2024 dated 12.t2.2024 is extracted as under; "3. Learned counsel for the parties jointly submit . that the controversy involved in the instant petition is squarely covered by an order dated L9.12.2O18 passed in W.P.No.44Ol4 of 2OL8.

4. Relevant extract of the order dated 19.L2.2OLB passed in W.P.No.44Ol4 of 2018 reads as under: "7. Therefore, the writ petition is disposed of directing the Sub-Registrar to register the sale certificate. However, if after adjustment of the entire loan amount, any surplus money remains out of the auction sale proceeds, the Bank shall not pay it to the 7th respondent borrower but shall pay it to the Sth 8 SK, J W.P.No.16004 of 2025 r' res[)ondent-company, after notice to the 7th respondent. There u'ill be no order as to costs."

12. In the instant case also, the petitioner-Companv by follcwing the provisions of SARFAESI Act took over the pos,session of the subject property and brought the same .:or auction. In view of the settled law, the respon<lent authorities have no power to refuse the registre.tion of the sale certificate under SARFAESI Act on the ground of attachment orders of the Civil Court or other a.uthorities for the same property. In view of the same, the Registering Authority has to delete the subject property from the prohibitory list for registration of the sale certificate to be issued by the petitioner Company in favour of the auction purchaser without reference to the attachrnent order in I.A.No.19 of 2021 in ARB No. 1 9 L I 2021 dated 1 0.08.20 2L on the file of the Deputy Registrar of Chits/Arbitrator, Mahabubnagar.

13. Irr view of the above findings, the present writ petitiorr is disposed of directing the respondent No.3- I Sub-Re gistrar to register the sale certificate to be issued " - ;-,. 9 SK, J W.P.No.16004 of 2025 by the petitioner Company in favour of the auction purchaser as per the provisions of SARFAESI Act without reference to the attachment order in I.A.No.19 of 2O2l in ARB No. 191/2021 dated 10.08.2021 on the file the Deputy Registrar of Chits/Arbitrator, Mahabubnagar. However, if after adjustment of the entire loan amount, ooy surplus money remains out of the auction sale proceeds, the Bank shall not pay it to the respondent Nos.4 and S-borrowers , but shall pay it to the respondent No.6-Company, after notice to the respondent Nos .4 and, 5. There shall be no order as to costs. L4. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall also stand closed. //TRUE COPY// SD/. K. BHAVANI SWAMY REGIS OFFICER To,

1. \ 2 The District ps and Dist. The Sub Registrar, 3 4. One CC to SRl. VIKRAM RAGI, Advocate TOPUCI 5. Two ccs to GP FOBSE\MPS AND REGtsrRATloN ,High court for the Wanaparthy State of Telangana. [OUTJ DAN : , i I t r ! I , i I I I I I I I I I I I I I I i I l t, i Ii !i t: I ,, t. i, t, I: i, I I j i i i HIGH CC}URT DATED:'1411112025 t ORDER WP.No.16004 of 2025 t 't TI-;E S 0 o rl / |{Aq 2[]f; * * DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS q ..d.I 5*