High Court of KeralaSingle JudgeWrit petition allowed; mutation directed in pet...

Sheeja Salim v. The District Collector, Thiruvananthapuram and Others

Case / Petition Number:WP(C) No.19277 of 2022

Case Details & Bench

Court
High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges
  • V.G. Arun
Judgment Date
2022-11-14
Court Decision / Holding
The writ petition is allowed. The court declares that the refusal to mutate the property in the petitioner’s name and to efface attachments post-04.03.2015 from the encumbrance certificate is illegal. It directs the Sub Registrar to effect mutation in the petitioner’s name for the property covered by Ext.P3 and directs the 4th respondent to issue an encumbrance certificate after erasing the attachments effected after 04.03.2015. The court cites Madhan S. v. Sub Registrar, Kollam and others and holds that attachments post-mortgage do not affect the sale under SARFAESI and do not impede the purchaser’s title; the sale is free of encumbrances.
Final Disposition
Writ petition allowed; mutation directed in petitioner’s name; encumbrance certificate to be issued after erasure of post-2015 attachments; attachments after 2015 to be expunged from Book 1 under Section 51 of the Registration Act; order to register the sale de hors the attachment was effectively upheld through the current relief.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

  • SHEEJA SALIM

Respondents

  • The District Collector, Thiruvananthapuram-695043
  • The Tahasildar, Nedumangadu, Thiruvananthapuram District. PIN - 695541
  • The Village Officer, Thekkada, Vembayam (P.O), Thiruvananthapuram District. PIN - 695615
  • The Sub Registrar, Kanyakulangara, Sub Registrar Office, Kanyakulangara (P.O), Thiruvananthapuram District. PIN - 695615
  • NujuMudeen S., Nusaifa Manzil, Ozhukupura, Thekkada Village, Kuthirakkulam (P.O), Vembayam, Thiruvananthapuram District. PIN 695615
  • R. Rajan, aged 54 years, S/O Ramakrishnan, residing at Plavila Veedu, Vayattu, Venjarammoodu, Manikkal Muri, Nellannadu Village, Nedumangad Taluk, Thiruvananthapuram District. PIN-695 607
  • Sajeer, S/O Shamsudeen, Residing at Siddhique Manzil, Karikkakom, Kuthirakulam, Vembayam, Thiruvananthapuram District. PIN - 695615
  • JAFFAR KHAN ABDUL VAHAB, Residing at Charuvila Puthenveedu, Avanoor, Kottarakkara (P.O), Kollam District. PIN-691506

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

  • • JAWAHAR JOSE

Counsels for Respondents

  • • SUMAN CHAKRAVARTHY
  • • AMJATH A.R

Case Synopsis & Summary

Petitioner Sheeja Salim purchased a property from the State Bank of India under SARFAESI auction in 2021 after the property was mortgaged by the fifth respondent and extended up to 2015. The petitioner obtained Ext.P3 sale certificate and the bank sought registration of the sale deed from the Sub Registrar, which was refused due to an attachment existing on the property. The bank obtained Ext.P2 judgment in W.P.(C) No.27044/2021 directing registration de hors the attachment, and the sale certificate was registered on 28.01.2022. subsequently, the petitioner sought mutation (Ext.P4) and an encumbrance certificate (Ext.P5). The second respondent rejected mutation on the ground of attachments pursuant to orders of the Sub Court, Nedumangad (O.S. Nos. 55/2021 and 62/2021). The petitioner prayed that attachments after 04.03.2015 be effaced from revenue records and that encumbrance certificate be issued without such attachments. Reliance was placed on Madhan S. v. Sub Registrar, Kollam and others (2014 (1) KLT 406), asserting that attachments post-mortgage do not affect the sale or title and that the sale under SARFAESI is free of encumbrances. The Kerala High Court, applying Section 64 and Order 38 Rule 10 CPC and following Madhan S., held that the sale under Ext.P5 is free of encumbrances, directed mutation in the petitioner’s name, and ordered the encumbrance certificate after erasing post-2015 attachments. The petition was allowed with directions to the Sub Registrar and Village Officer.

Provisions of Law Cited

SARFAESI Act and Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002Kerala Land Tax Act, 1961Section 51, Registration Act, 1908Section 64, Registration Act, 1908Order 38 Rule 10, CPC

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioner’s counsel contends that the refusal to mutate the property in the petitioner’s name and to erase post-2015 attachments from the encumbrance certificate is illegal and unsustainable. It is argued that an order of attachment creates no charge; the mortgage encumbrance is not diluted by attachments, and the sale under SARFAESI and the Ext.P3/P5 process should free the purchaser from subsequent attachments. Relying on Madhan S. v. Sub Registrar, Kollam, the petitioner asserts that attachments after the mortgage should be effaced and that mutation is required to reflect the purchaser’s title. The petitioner maintains that the Encumbrance Certificate must reflect no post-2015 attachments to ensure marketability of the property.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents contend mutation cannot be effected while attachments exist and there is no statutory provision for erasing attachment entries from the encumbrance certificate. They rely on court orders attaching the property post-mortgage and contend that these orders bind the records and must be observed. The Government Pleader notes that mutation is not possible in the presence of attachments and emphasizes that Section 51/64 of the Registration Act cannot override the attachments recognized by court orders.

Cited Precedents (1)

Case NameCitationTreatmentExplanation
Madhan S. v. Sub Registrar, Kollam and others2014(1) KLT 406PositiveCourt relied on and followed the Madhan S. ruling that attachments subsequent to mortgage do not affect sale under SARFAESI and the purchaser’s title; such attachments cease to have efficacy after sale.

Diagnostic Tool

Beta

Does this judgment govern your specific facts?

Don't risk relying on a distinguishable precedent. Enter your facts or proposition below. We will test it against Sheeja Salim v. The District Collector, Thiruvananthapuram and Others and instantly map out authorities that support, challenge, or govern your position.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.G.ARUN** **MONDAY, THE 14[TH] DAY OF NOVEMBER 2022 / 23RD KARTHIKA,** ## **1944** ## **WP(C) NO. 19277 OF 2022** ## **PETITIONER/S:** SHEEJA SALIM, AGED 49 YEARS W/O SALIM, RESIDING AT SALIM MANZIL, MUKKALA, THEMPAMOODU, PULLAMPARA (P.O), THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT. PIN - 695607. BY ADV JAWAHAR JOSE ## **RESPONDENT/S:** |1|THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,| |---|---| ||THIRUVANATHAPURAM-695 043.| |2|THE TAHASILDAR,| ||NEDUMANGADU,| ||THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT. PIN - 695541.| |3|THE VILLAGE OFFICER,| ||THEKKADA,| ||VEMBAYAM (P.O), THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT.| ||PIN - 695 615.| |4|THE SUB REGISTRAR,| ||KANYAKULANGARA,| ||SUB REGISTRAR OFFICE, KANYAKULANGARA (P.O),| ||THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT. PIN - 695615.| |5|NUJUMUDEEN S.,| ||NUSAIFA MANZIL, OZHUKUPURA,| ||THEKKADA VILLAGE, KUTHIRAKKULAM (P.O),| ||VEMBAYAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT. PIN| ||695615.| |6|R. RAJAN,| ||AGED 54 YEARS,| ||S/O RAMAKRISHNAN, RESIDING AT PLAVILA VEEDU,| ||VAYYETTU, VENJARAMOODU, MANIKKAL MURI,| ||NELLANADU VILLAGE, NEDUMANGAD TALUK,| ||THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT. PIN-695 607.| |7|SAJEER,| ||S/O SHAMSUDEEN,| ||RESIDING AT SIDDHIQUE MANZIL,| W.P.(C) No.19277 of 2022 -2- KARIKKAKOM, KUTHIRAKULAM, VEMBAYAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT. PIN - 695615 8 JAFFAR KHAN ABDUL VAHAB, RESIDING AT CHARUVILA PUTHENVEEDU, AVANOOR, KOTTARAKARA (P.O), KOLLAM DISTRICT. PIN-691506. BY ADVS. SUMAN CHAKRAVARTHY AMJATH A.R ## **OTHER PRESENT:** gp AMMINIKUTTY K; P.S.APPU **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARRD ON** **24.06.2022, THE COURT ON 14.11.2022 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** W.P.(C) No.19277 of 2022 -3- ## **JUDGMENT** Dated this the 14[th] day of November, 2022 The petitioner purchased the property covered by Ext.P3 sales certificate in an e-auction conducted by the State Bank of India on 05.11.2021. The property was mortgaged with the bank as security for a loan availed by the 5th respondent. The mortgage was created by deposit of title deeds as per Ext.P1 document dated 14.12.2011. The borrower having defaulted repayment of the loan, the bank brought the property to sale following the procedure prescribed under the SARFAESI Act and the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002. The petitioner purchased the property and was issued with Ext.P3 sales certificate. Thereafter the bank requested the 4[th] respondent/ Sub Registrar to register the sale deed, which was refused on W.P.(C) No.19277 of 2022 -4- the ground that there were subsisting attachment over the property. Aggrieved by the refusal, the bank approached this Court in W.P.(C) No.27044 of 2021 and obtained Ext.P2 judgment requiring the Sub Registrar to register the document _de hors_ the attachment. In compliance of the direction, the sale certificate was registered on 28.01.2022. 2. Thereafter, the petitioner submitted Ext.P4 application before the second respondent, requesting to direct the third respondent/Village Officer to effect mutation and accept tax from the petitioner for the property. The second respondent rejected the request as per Ext.P4 (a) on the ground that the property is under attachment as per orders passed by the Sub Court, Nedumangad in O.S.Nos.55/2021 and 62 of 2021. Thereupon, the petitioner submitted Ext.P5 before the 4[th] respondent/Sub Registrar requesting to efface the attachments effected after the W.P.(C) No.19277 of 2022 -5- property was mortgaged with the bank and to issue an encumbrance certificate without showing the orders of attachment issued after 04.03.2015. The said request was turned down by Ext.P7 and the petitioner informed that the attachments cannot be effaced without an order from the competent court. Aggrieved by Exts.P4(a) and P7, this writ petition is filed seeking the following reliefs; _“i. Call for the records leading to the issuance of Exhibits-P4(a) and P7 orders and issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the said orders._ _ii. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus, directing the respondents 2 and 3, to effect mutation, and to accept tax from the petitioner, by the provisions of the Kerala Land Tax Act, 1961, without showing the attachments in the revenue records, with respect to the property purchased by the petitioner as per Exhibit-P3 sale deed._ _Iii. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus, directing the_ ## W.P.(C) No.19277 of 2022 -6- _respondents 2 and 3, to efface the attachments effected after 4-3-2015, from the relevant revenue records, as the said attachments will cause permanent taboo on the petitioners._ _iv. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the 4th respondent to efface/expunge all the attachments effected after 4-3-2015 in the property purchased by the petitioner as per Exhibit-P3 sale deed, from Book 1, which is maintained as per Section 51 of the Registration Act, 1908, and issue an encumbrance certificate to the petitioner, without exhibiting the said orders of attachment after 4-3-2015._ _v. Declare that the petitioners are entitled to efface/expunge the attachments from from Book 1, which is maintained as per Section 51 of the Registration Act, 1908, as the said attachments will prejudicially affect the marketability and title of the petitioners to the subject property, even though the attachments are not having any legal efficacy.”_ 3. Adv.Jawahar Jose, learned Counsel for the petitioner, contended that the refusal to effect ## W.P.(C) No.19277 of 2022 -7- mutation and efface the entries regarding attachments from the encumbrance certificate is patently illegal and unsustainable. It is argued that an order of attachment creates no charge and quality of the mortgage as an encumbrance does not get watered down by reason of an attachment issued by the civil court. Reliance is placed on the decision in _**Madhan S. v. Sub Registrar, Kollam and others [2014(1) KLT 406]**_ to contend that attachments effected subsequent to the creation of equitable mortgage should be effaced once the property is purchased in a sale conducted by the bank/secured creditor in accordance with provision of the SARFAESI Act and the Rules thereunder. It is pointed out that the property was originally mortgaged on 14.12.2011 and the mortgage was extended up to 03.03.2015. The attachment at the instance of respondents 5 to 8 was ordered by the Sub Court, Nedumangad in W.P.(C) No.19277 of 2022 -8- O.S.No.55 of 2021 and 62 of 2021 on 05.11.2021 and 01.12.2021 respectively. The attachments effected six years after creation of the mortgage, cannot impact the auction purchaser's rights. 4. Despite service of notice respondents 5 to - 8 have not entered appearance. 5. Learned Government Pleader submitted that mutation of the property could not be effected in view of the orders of attachment and there is no provision for effacing the entry regarding attachment from the encumbrance certificate. 6. As rightly pointed out by the learned Counsel for the petitioner, this Court in _**Madhan**_ _**S.**_ , after careful analysis of the relevant statutory provisions and the judicial precedents held as under; _“9. The preponderance of judicial opinion leads to the irresistible conclusion that the sale of the mortgaged property in favour of the petitioner under_ -9- ## W.P.(C) No.19277 of 2022 _Ext. P5 sale certificate under the Act is free of all encumbrances. The attachments effected subsequent to the mortgage created in favour of the bank do not affect the title and ownership of the petitioner over the subject property. Such attachments have no impact on the sale conducted under the Act and the same ceases to have any effect or fall to the ground the moment the sale is confirmed in favour of the petitioner. The declaration so sought by the petitioner is therefore granted and I further direct the SubRegistrar and the Village Officer to efface the attachments effected subsequent to the mortgage from the relevant records. Otherwise those attachments would remain as a permanent taboo prejudicially affecting the marketability and title to the property even though they ceased to have any legal efficacy. The needful in relation to the property bought by the petitioner shall be done within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.”_ 7. On a careful reading of the erudite discussion in the above judgment after adverting to Section 64 and Order 38 Rule 10 of CPC and the ## W.P.(C) No.19277 of 2022 -10- precedents of the point, I am in complete agreement with the conclusion at paragraph 9 extracted above. In the result, this writ petition is allowed by declaring the refusal to effect mutation over the property covered by Ext.P3 in the petitioner’s name and to efface the attachments effected after 04.03.2015 from the encumbrance certificate to be illegal. Consequently, the third respondent is directed to effect mutation of the property covered by Ext.P3 in the petitioner’s name and the 4[th] respondent is directed to issue encumbrance certificate with respect to the property covered by Ext.P3, after effacing the attachments effected over after 04.03.2015. Sd/- **V.G.ARUN JUDGE** Scl/ W.P.(C) No.19277 of 2022 -11- ## **APPENDIX OF WP(C) 19277/2022** PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM OF THE DEPOSIT OF TITLE DEED DATED 4-3-2015 WHICH WAS EXECUTED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT Exhibit P1(A) TRUE COPY OF THE SALE CERTIFICATE DATED 8-11-2021 Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 9-122021 IN W.P(C) NO.27044/2021 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE SALE DEED DATED 28-12022 EXECUTED BY THE AUTHORIZED OFFICER OF THE STATE BANK OF INDIA IN FAVOUR OF THE PETITIONER Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT Exhibit P4(A) TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 23-5-2022 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF THE ENCUMBRANCE CERTIFICATE WITH RESPECT TO THE SECURED ASSET WHICH WAS SOLD UNDER THE SARFAESI ACT IN FAVOUR OF THE PETITIONER Exhibit P6 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 4TH RESPONDENT Exhibit P7 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 25-5-2022 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT