Anand Pathak, J.

1. The present petition is preferred by the petitioner being a financial institution, aggrieved by inaction on part of respondents whereby they are not permitting sale certificate issued by the authorized officer of petitioner company to get it registered.

2. Petitioner being a secured creditor extended the loan facility to the borrower and when failed to pay due amount, loan account of borrower was declared as Non Performing Assets (NPA) on 30- 04-2024 and accordingly a demand notice dated 10-05-2024 under Section 13(2) of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as "the SARFAESI Act") was sent to the borrower. Thereafter possession as secured assets was taken on 22- 11-2024 by the authorized officer and the petitioner company exercised the power conferred under Section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act.

3. After taking possession, petitioner company proceeded for e- auction. After some procedural formalities, finally auction completed in 4th auction in June, 2025 and bid was confirmed in the name of respondent No.5 and sale certificate is also issued in his favour on 30-06-2025. Now registration process of sale certificate was to be completed, however Registrar, District Guna (respondent No.3 herein) is not causing registration of said sale certificate, therefore, this petition was preferred.

4. It is the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that after following due process, possession of the secured assets was taken by the petitioner company under Section 13(4) the SARFAESI Act. Assistance of District Authorities for taking possession is only required under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act when secured creditor faces any kind of resistance from the borrower(s) or any other person(s). In the present case, mortgaged property was vacated hence peaceful possession was taken. Sale certificate is issued under rule 9 (8) of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as "the Rules of 2002").

5. It is further submitted that Section 89(4) of the Registration Act, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act of 1908") provides provision to maintain record in books by the Registrar. However, provisions of article 18 and 23 of Schedule -I of Indian Stamp Act, 1899 provides provision for registration of sale certificate. According to learned counsel for the petitioner, letter dated 29-08- 2025 of Senior Sub Registrar is illegal.

6. Counsel for the respondents/State opposed the prayer and submits that registration of sale certificate can only be done by fulfilling provisions of Registration Act and Madhya Pradesh Registration Rules, 1939 (hereinafter referred to as "the Rules of 1939"). As per provisions of Section 34(3)(a) of the Act of 1908, it is the duty of the Registrar to enquire whether or not such document was executed by the persons by whom it purports to have been executed. Section 34(3)(b) of the Act of 1908 provides power to the Registrar to satisfy himself as to the identity of the persons appearing before him and alleging that they have executed the document.

7. As per the provisions of Rules of 1939, under rule 19(x)(i), it is mandatory to produce certified copy of the mutation order issued by the Municipal Corporation or other such department which firmly establishes existence of the property. As per rule 35(m) of the Rules of 1939, it is a valid reason for refusal to register a document if identity of the executant has not been established to the satisfaction of the registering officer. Thus, prayed for dismissal of petition.

8. Heard the counsel for the parties and perused the documents appended thereto.

9. Moot questions involved in the present case are:

          i. Whether registering authority can refuse to register the sale certificate issued by the authorized officer after successful auction on the pretext that possession was taken without intervention of any Court or authority ?

          ii. Whether in absence of any mutation order in favour of auction purchaser, registering authority can decline to register the sale certificate ?

10. Regarding question No.1:

          This issue is recently dealt with by the Division Bench of this Court (at Gwalior) in UCO Bank Vs. M/s Asha Oil Industries and others, 2026 Supreme (Online) (MP) 1704 wherein after considering the judgment passed by the Apex Court in the case of Standard Chartered Bank Vs. Noble Kumar and Others (2013) 9 SCC 620 held that if possession is already taken by the secured creditor from the borrower then resorting to the proceedings under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act is not required.

11. In fact, proceedings under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act is one of the recourses available to the secured creditor. Even if secured creditor did not resort to remedy under Section 14 of SARFAESI Act even then creditor can take possession of secured assets and any registering authority cannot decline to register the document on this pretext.

12. The Apex Court in the case of Standard Chartered Bank (supra) held as under:

          "36. Thus, there will be three methods for the secured creditor to take possession of the secured assets:

          36.1. (i) The first method would be where the secured creditor gives the requisite notice under Rule 8(1) and where he does not meet with any resistance. In that case, the authorised officer will proceed to take steps as stipulated under Rule 8(2) onwards to take possession and thereafter for sale of the secured assets to realise the amounts that are claimed by the secured creditor.

          36.2. (ii) The second situation will arise where the secured creditor meets with resistance from the borrower after the notice under Rule 8(1) is given. In that case he will take recourse to the mechanism provided under Section 14 of the Act viz. making application to the Magistrate. The Magistrate will scrutinise the application as provided in Section 14, and then if satisfied, appoint an officer subordinate to him as provided under Section 14(1-A) to take possession of the assets and documents. For that purpose the Magistrate may authorise the officer concerned to use such force as may be necessary. After the possession is taken the assets and documents will be forwarded to the secured creditor.

          36.3. (iii) The third situation will be one where the secured creditor approaches the Magistrate concerned directly under Section 14 of the Act. The Magistrate will thereafter scrutinise the application as provided in Section 14, and then if satisfied, authorise a subordinate officer to take possession of the assets and documents and forward them to the secured creditor as under clause 36.2.(ii) above.

          36.4. In any of the three situations above, after the possession is handed over to the secured creditor, the subsequent specified provisions of Rule 8 concerning the preservation, valuation and sale of the secured assets, and other subsequent rules from the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002, shall apply."

13. It is further explained in Standard Chartered Bank (supra) that secured creditor may initially resort to the procedure under Section 13(4) of SARFAESI Act and upon facing resistance he may still approach the Magistrate under Section 14 of SARFAESI Act.

14. Similarly in UCO Bank (supra), Division Bench of this Court held in following manner:

          "23. Even otherwise, Section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act itself mandates the secured creditors to take possession of the secured assets of the borrower and requirement of Section 14 comes when possession of any secured asset is required to be taken with the help of authority as provided in Section 14 of the Act. Meaning thereby, if possession is already taken by the secured creditor from borrower then resorting to proceeding under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act is not required."

15. Similar issue is also decided by the Division Bench at Principal Seat Jabalpur in Sunil Garg Vs. Bank of Baroda and others, (2018) 3 MPLJ 615 in following manner:

          "06. Sub-section (4) of Section 13 of the Act authorizes the secured creditor to take possession of the secured assets including that the secured creditor has a right to transfer by way of lease, assignment or sale for realising the secured debts. Still further, the District Magistrate or the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate or any Officer authorised by him is competent to take possession of any secured asset. There is no distinction between symbolic and physical possession either under Section 13(4) or under Section 14 of the Act or for that matter in any other provisions of the Act or the Rules made thereunder."

16. Regarding question No.2:

          Another question involved in the matter is regarding scope of the Registration Act vis -a-vis mutation. Regarding registration of sale certificate issued in auction process, the issue is dealt by the Apex Court in the case of State of Punjab Vs. M/s Ferrous Alloy Forgings P Ltd, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3372, wherein it is held that registering authority shall keep in record copy of sale certificate as per Section 89(4) of the Act of 1908 and if auction purchaser wants to get the same registered for future purpose then upon payment of requisite stamp duty, the same shall be registered. Guidance given by Apex Court is in following manner:

          20. The position of law discussed above makes it clear that sale certificate issued by the authorised officer is not compulsorily registrable. Mere filing under Section 89(4)of the Registration Act itself is sufficient when a copy of the sale certificate is forwarded by the authorised officer to the registering authority.

          However, a perusal of Articles 18and 23respectively of the first schedule to the Stamp Act makes it clear that when the auction purchaser presents the original sale certificate for registration, it would attract stamp duty in accordance with the said Articles. As long as the sale certificate remains as it is, it is not compulsorily registrable. It is only when the auction purchaser uses the certificate for some other purpose that the requirement of payment of stamp duty, etc. would arise.

17. One more aspect deserves consideration regarding mutation is Section 13(6) of the SARFAESI Act which reads as under:

          "13. Enforcement of security interest.--

          (6) Any transfer of secured asset after taking possession thereof or take over of management under sub-section (4), by the secured creditor or by the manager on behalf of the secured creditor shall vest in the transferee all rights in, or in relation to, the secured asset transferred as if the transfer had been made by the owner of such secured asset."

18. It is clear from the bare reading of Section 13(6) of the SARFAESI Act that upon transfer of secured asset to the transferee/auction purchaser, get all the rights related to such property/secured asset from the secured creditor as if the transfer is done by the owner (borrower herein) all such secured assets. Therefore, this transaction is validated by law. Therefore, secured creditor is not required to get the name changed (mutation) in revenue record before transferring the same to the auction purchaser.

19. Recently the Apex Court in the case of Samiullah Vs. The State of Bihar, (2026) 1 SCC 475 held that mutation is not required for registering the document for sale of the property. Relevant extract is reproduced below:

          "20. The rule making power extends to the Inspector General provisioning the safe custody and procedure for maintaining books and documents, the conduct of the proceedings including language and holidays, territorial divisions, imposition of fines and regulating discretion. There is nothing in Section 69 that would enable the Inspector General to make rules enabling or requiring declaring or enclosing proof of mutation in favour of the vendor, as a condition precedent for registration of documents for sale of property.

20. It is also settled in law that revenue entries are presumptive in nature (rebuttable presumption) and raises presumption of ownership but does not confer the ownership. It is only for fiscal/revenue purpose etc. Therefore, there is no condition precedent to a secured creditor to get its name mutated in revenue record. Once sale certificate is issued under rule 9(6) of the Rules of 2002 it is the duty of registering authority to keep it in the record and if auction purchaser wants to get it registered then the authority is duty bound to register the same on the basis of sale certificate issued by the secured creditor.

21. Of course registering authority may verify the factum of issuance of sale certificate from the office of authorized officer/secured creditor and identity of executant just to avoid forgery or fabrication of document or to avoid any fraud based upon forgery.

22. Therefore, in view of the above discussion, the approach of registering authority was erroneous. Therefore, order dated 29-08- 2025 is hereby set aside. Secured creditor and auction purchaser may appear before the registering authority for completion of necessary formalities in accordance with law and registering authority shall proceed accordingly as per law regarding registration.

23. Petition stands allowed and disposed of.