Unregistered transfer documents cannot defeat SARFAESI auction rights; a valid auction stands absent fraud, collusion, or illegality.

An unregistered sale deed or agreement to sell does not convey title in tangible immovable property, so possession or private arrangements alone cannot create an enforceable ownership right capable of defeating a secured creditor's enforcement or an auction purchaser's claim. In SARFAESI enforcement, a confirmed auction and sale certificate will not be disturbed unless the process is vitiated by fraud, collusion, material irregularity, or illegality. The right of redemption is also confined to the statutory framework and must be exercised within the permissible stage; an unregistered claimant who has not validly redeemed cannot resist the auction purchaser's rights.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the unregistered transactions relied upon by respondent No.2 conferred any title or enforceable ownership right in the secured asset. (ii) Whether the auction sale conducted under the SARFAESI Act and the sale certificate issued in favour of the appellant could be set aside, and whether respondent No.2 could still claim a right of redemption.

Issue (i): Whether the unregistered transactions relied upon by respondent No.2 conferred any title or enforceable ownership right in the secured asset.

Analysis: The alleged chain of title in favour of respondent No.2 rested on unregistered sale deeds and an unregistered agreement to sell. For tangible immovable property of the value involved, transfer of ownership requires a registered instrument. An unregistered agreement to sell or sale deed does not complete conveyance, and no title passes merely on the basis of possession or private arrangements. As the foundational documents were unregistered, respondent No.2 could not establish ownership or a legal interest capable of defeating the bank's security enforcement or the auction purchaser's rights.

Conclusion: Respondent No.2 did not acquire title to the secured asset and could not claim ownership of the basement on the basis of the unregistered documents.

Issue (ii): Whether the auction sale conducted under the SARFAESI Act and the sale certificate issued in favour of the appellant could be set aside, and whether respondent No.2 could still claim a right of redemption.

Analysis: The bank proceeded under the statutory scheme after default, issued notice, took possession, and conducted the auction in compliance with the SARFAESI framework. The appellant was the highest bidder and a sale certificate was issued. A confirmed public auction is not to be lightly disturbed unless there is material irregularity, illegality, fraud, or collusion affecting the process. The record did not disclose any such vitiating circumstance. The right of redemption under the SARFAESI regime is also confined by statute and had not been validly exercised within the permissible stage, despite repeated opportunities afforded to respondent No.2.

Conclusion: The auction sale was valid and could not be set aside, and respondent No.2 had no surviving redemption claim to defeat the appellant's purchase.

Final Conclusion: The appellant's auction purchase was protected, the High Court's interference was unwarranted, and the restoration of the auction sale and possession-related reliefs followed from the validity of the SARFAESI enforcement process.

Ratio Decidendi: An unregistered transfer document does not convey title in immovable property, and a duly conducted SARFAESI auction cannot be set aside absent fraud, collusion, or material illegality affecting the sale process.

---