D.Sumathira v. The Sub Registrar

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 16.04.2025

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V. LAKSHMINARAYANAN D.Sumathira ... Petitioner vs.

1.The Sub Registrar, Sattur, Virudhunagar District.

2.The General Manager, Indian Bank, No.66, Rajaji Road, Chennai - 01.

3.The Manager, Indian Bank, Ramasamy Nagar Branch, Thulukkapatti Village, Virudhunagar District.

... Respondents PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of Writ of Mandamus directing the 3rd respondent to issue a letter to the 1st respondent to raise the attachment registered upon the property mentioned in the above schedule and consequential direction directing the 1st respondent to raise the attachment registered on 14.08.2001, 11.09.2001 and 19.11.2001 dates as document no. 6/2001.

1/8

For Petitioner :Ms.Lakshmi Gopinathan for M/s.Polax Legal Solutions For Respondents :Mr.R.Sureshkumar (R1) Additional Government Pleader : Mr.C.Karthika (R2 & R3) for Mr.C.Karthik

ORDER

The petitioner is the owner of the following properties:- 2/8

2. The petitioner had mortgaged the properties with the third respondent bank. On account of default committed by her, the bank had initiated recovery proceedings before the Debts Recovery Tribunal at Chennai in OA No.1061 of 1999. The proceeding was decreed and a recovery certificate was also issued on 16.11.2000 in recovery certificate No.339/2000.

3/8

3. On the strength of the recovery certificate, proceedings were initiated before the Debts Recovery Tribunal - II at Chennai, in DRC No.343/2001. The Debts Recovery Tribunal - II also attached the properties on 14.08.2001.

4. Subsequently, the petitioner repaid the loans and got a discharge receipt from the bank on 06.09.2013. The discharge receipt was registered with the first respondent as Document No.7967/2013. Despite the same, the attachment continued to be recorded on the file of the first respondent. Hence, the petitioner gave a representation on 14.02.2025 and came forward with the present writ petition.

5. When the matter came up for admission, I pointed out to the learned counsel for the petitioner that as the attachment has been made by Debts Recovery Tribunal - II, the order of lifting the attachment would have been passed, before the same is registered by the first respondent. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner sought time for moving an appropriate application before the Debts Recovery Tribunal - II, Chennai, and the matter is adjourned to enable the petitioner to do the needful.

4/8

6. I heard Ms.Lakshmi Gopinathan, for the petitioner, Mr.R.Sureshkumar, learned Additional Government Pleader for the first respondent and Mr.C.Karthik, for the respondents 2 and 3.

7. Ms.Lakshmi Gopinathan, has produced the order passed by the Debts Recovery Tribunal - II, Chennai, dated 24.03.2025. In terms of the said order, the Debts Recovery Tribunal - II, Chennai, has lifted the order of attachment in Dy.No.463/2025 in DRC No. 343/2001 in OA No.28/2005.

8. As the order of attachment has been lifted by the Tribunal, which attached the property, the bar under Section 22 B(3) of the Registration Act stands raised. Accordingly, there shall be a direction to the first respondent to record the raising of the attachment in the encumbrance certificate.

9. Mr.R.Sureshkumar, learned Additional Government Pleader states that the said exercise will be completed by 24.04.2025.

10. In result, this Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs. 5/8

11. Call 'For compliance' on 29.04.2025.

Index :Yes / No 16.04.2025 NCC :Yes / No Sm 6/8

To:- 1.The Sub Registrar, Sattur, Virudhunagar District.

7/8

V. LAKSHMINARAYANAN, J.

Sm 16.04.2025 8/8