SARFAESI sale certificates may be registered despite later attachment, but attachment entries cannot be erased by writ jurisdiction.

A sale certificate issued under SARFAESI may be registered despite a later attachment by a civil or family court, because the secured creditor enforces security interest without court intervention and the registering officer's role is administrative; refusal on that ground is unsustainable. However, the High Court cannot, in writ jurisdiction, direct deletion or effacement of the attachment entry in Book No.1, since the Registration Act only permits recording of the attachment and its later revocation by the attaching court, not erasure by the registering authority. A Single Judge also lacks power to refer such matters to a Full Bench, and earlier decisions allowing effacement under Article 226 were overruled to that extent.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether a writ court can direct registration of a sale certificate issued by a secured creditor under SARFAESI despite an attachment entered against the property by a civil court or family court; (ii) whether the High Court can direct deletion or effacement of the attachment entry in Book No.1 maintained under the Registration Act; (iii) whether a Single Judge can refer such matters to a Full Bench and whether the earlier line of decisions permitting effacement required reconsideration.

Issue (i): whether a writ court can direct registration of a sale certificate issued by a secured creditor under SARFAESI despite an attachment entered against the property by a civil court or family court.

Analysis: The secured creditor's power to enforce security interest under the SARFAESI Act operates without intervention of court or tribunal, and upon sale the purchaser obtains title in the property in the manner contemplated by the Act and the Enforcement Rules. The statutory scheme, including the requirement that the sale certificate mention whether the property is free from encumbrances known to the secured creditor, shows that a subsequent attachment does not defeat the right to have the sale certificate registered. The registering officer's duty under the Registration Act is administrative, and where a sale certificate issued under the SARFAESI regime is presented, the existence of a later attachment cannot be a ground to refuse registration.

Conclusion: The High Court can issue a writ of mandamus directing registration of the sale certificate, and the refusal to register on the ground of a subsequent attachment is not sustainable.

Issue (ii): whether the High Court can direct deletion or effacement of the attachment entry in Book No.1 maintained under the Registration Act.

Analysis: An attachment by itself does not create an encumbrance or title interest, but the mechanism provided by law for removal of an attachment is before the court that made the order. Section 89 of the Registration Act permits the filing of the attachment or release communication in Book No.1 and the rules contemplate a subsequent note when an attachment is revoked or lifted; they do not authorise the registering officer to erase the original entry. A direction to efface the entry would amount to interference with a judicial order and would bypass the statutory procedure available before the attaching court. The remedy under Article 226 cannot be used to compel an act contrary to the statutory scheme.

Conclusion: The High Court cannot grant a writ of mandamus or certiorari for effacement or deletion of the attachment entry in Book No.1; the party must approach the court that issued the attachment.

Issue (iii): whether a Single Judge can refer such matters to a Full Bench and whether the earlier line of decisions permitting effacement required reconsideration.

Analysis: Under the Kerala High Court Act, a Single Judge may adjourn a matter for hearing by a Bench of two Judges, but a reference to a Full Bench is not within that power. The referral of the connected writ petitions by Single Judges to a Full Bench was therefore not in accordance with the statutory scheme. On the merits, the earlier decisions that authorised effacement of attachment entries under Article 226 were inconsistent with the Registration Act and the procedural remedies under the Code of Civil Procedure, and required overruling to that extent.

Conclusion: The references by the Single Judges were held to be incompetent, the matters were sent back as per roster, and the earlier decisions allowing effacement of attachment entries under Article 226 were overruled to that extent.

Final Conclusion: The legal position declared is that a secured creditor's sale certificate can be registered notwithstanding a later attachment, but the attachment entry in Book No.1 cannot be erased by writ jurisdiction and must be dealt with before the court that made the attachment order.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a secured asset is sold under SARFAESI after creation of the mortgage, the purchaser's title prevails over later attachments, but the Registration Act does not empower the High Court or the registering officer to efface a judicial attachment entry, and the proper forum for lifting or recording withdrawal of the attachment is the court that issued it.

---