Holding

Under Section 89(4) of the Registration Act read with Rule 21 of the Income‑Tax (Certificate Proceedings) Rules, the Sub‑Registrar must file the copy of the tax‑recovery sale certificate in Book No. I and the purchaser is not required to register the certificate; stamp duty is payable by the purchaser unless a contract to the contrary exists.

Summary

The petitioners purchased immovable property at auction sales conducted by the Tax Recovery Officer (TRO) for recovery of income‑tax and were issued certificates of sale. They approached the Sub‑Registrar to register the certificates, but the Sub‑Registrar and the Collector of Stamps refused unless stamp duty was paid. The Supreme Court held that under Section 89(4) of the Indian Registration Act, read with Rule 21 of the Income‑Tax (Certificate Proceedings) Rules, the Sub‑Registrar’s only duty is to file a copy of the certificate in Book No. I; the certificate itself is not a compulsorily registrable document. Consequently, the purchaser’s title is not vitiated by non‑registration, and the liability to pay stamp duty remains with the purchaser unless a specific contract provides otherwise. The Court did not adjudicate the stamp‑duty or municipal transfer‑fee issues, leaving them to be decided in appropriate proceedings. The appeals were allowed in part, directing the Sub‑Registrar to file the copies as required.

Issues considered

What action must the Sub‑Registrar take when a copy of a certificate of sale is forwarded by the Tax Recovery Officer?
Whether the purchaser can compel the Tax Recovery Officer to make entries in the register based on the copy of the certificate of sale
What procedure must be followed if the original certificate of sale is presented before the Sub‑Registrar
Who bears the liability to pay stamp duty on a certificate of sale issued in a tax‑recovery auction
Whether municipal transfer fees are payable in relation to such a sale

Legislation cited

Delhi Municipal Act
Income Tax Act, 1961
Income Tax (Certificate Proceedings) Rules, 1962s. Rule 21
Indian Stamp Act, 1899s. 29(f), s. 3, s. Schedule I Article 18
Registration Act, 1908s. 17(2)(xii), s. 31, s. 32, s. 33, s. 38, s. 51, s. 52, s. 53, s. 54, s. 55, s. 56, s. 57, s. 58, s. 59, s. 60, s. 61, s. 62, s. 63, s. 64, s. 65, s. 66, s. 67, s. 89(4)

Subjects

stamp dutyregistrationcertificate of saletax recovery auctionrevenue officerIndian Registration ActIndian Stamp Actincome taxmunicipal transfer feesub‑registrar

Judgment

SMT. SHANTI DEVI L. SINGH AND ANR. A
v.
TAX RECOVERY OFFICER AND ORS.

-~- APRIL 23, 1990

[S. RANGANATHAN AND A.M. AHMADI, JJ.] B

Indian Stamp Act, 1899: Sections 3 and 29(f) and Schedule I,
Article 18---Tax Recovery Sale-Certificate of Sale-Whether pur-
-7 chaser of property liable to pay stamp duty.

.--- very Sale-Purchaser
Registration Act, 1908: Sections 17(2)(xii) and 89(4)-Tgx Reco-
of Property-Whether required to get certificate
c
of sale registered-Term "Revenue Officer"-Whether includes Tax
Recovery Officer.
"'r - Income Tax Act, 1961/lncome Tax (Certificate Proceedings)
Rules, 1962: Rule 21-Tax Recovery Sale-Purchaser of Propert}I- D
Whether required to get certificate of sale registered.
I
The appellants purchased properties in auction sales conducted
by the Tax Recovery Officer for recovery of income tax and were issued
sale certificates. Copies of certificates were also sent to the Sub-
Registrar, as required under Rule 21 of the Income Tax (Certificate) E
--'{ Proceedings Rules-ITCP Rules. The appellants approached the Sub-
Registrar for getting the properties registered in their names but the
Sub-Registrar and the Collector of Stamps refused to do so unless
stamp duty was paid on the certificate of sale. At the appellants'
request, the Tax Recovery Officer also addressed the two officers for
getting the entries made in the Register on the basis of the copy of sale F
~--- certificate. He also informed the Collector of Stamps that acc'!rding to
the legal advice given to him no stamp duty was payable on the certifi-
~ cate of sale. However, no action was taken by either of the officers. The
appellants' request to Delhi Administration and Municipal Corporation
to effect mutation entries in the Corporation Register, was also not
acceded to on account of the appellants' failure to pay the transfer fees, G
leviable as additional stamp duty under the Delhi Municipal Act.
Therefore, the appellants filed writ petitions before the High Court
praying for directions to the respondents to register the certificate of
sale and mutate the property in the name of the appellants. The High
··~.
Court dismissed the petitions holding that, in the absence of specific
contract to the contrary, the liability to pay the stamp duty was that of H
the purchaser.
627
628 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1990] 2 S.C.R.

Allowing the appeals by the purchasers, partly, this Court,

HELD: I. Under section 89( 4), every Revenue Officer, granting a
certificate of sale of immovable property or public auction should send a
--
copy of such certificate to the registering officer within the local limits
of whose jurisdiction the whole or any part of the immovable property
B comprised in such certificate is situate, and such registering officer
shall file the copy or copies, as the case may be, in his Book No. J.
So far as sales for recovery of income-tax are concerned rule 21 of
the !TCP Rules, makes a like provision requiring the concerned
T.R.O. to send a copy of the certificate of sale to the registering officer
concetned. [632E-G]

c There is no need to read the term 'revenue officer' in any
restricted sense. It is wide and comprehensive enough to include the
-
T.R.O. who effects a compulsory sale for the recovery of an income-tax
demand. The registeration officer has to act in terms of section 89( 4) of
the Indian Registration Act read with Rule 21 of the !TCP Rules and file
D the copy of the certificate of sale received by him from the T .R.O. in his
Book No. J. [633A-B]

2. Section 17(2)(xii) of the Registration Act, 1908 makes it clear
that the certificate of sale issued in a court sale or by a revenue officer
does not need registration. Though this provjsion, like section 89,
E relates only to a certificate of sale granted to the purchaser of auy
property sold by public auction by a civil court or revenue officer, the
certificate issued by the T.R.O. is also covered by this provision. It is,
therefore, not obligatory on the purchaser of property in a tax reco-
very sale to get the certificate of sale registered in order to perfect his
title. However, if he presents the original certificate· of sale to the
F Registration Officer for registration, the Registration Officer will have
to comply with the relevant statutory provision in this regard. [636F-HJ

3.1 The Certificate of sale itself not being a compulsorily register-
able document: vide section 17(2)(xii), the transfer of title in favour of
the purchaser is not vitiated by the non-registration of the certificate.
G The copy of the certificate filed in Book No. l contains all the relevant
details. These details are reflected in the indices maintained under
section 55 which are open to inspection to all persons. These require-
ments are sufficient to ensure that any person intending to purchase or -~ •
deal with the property is put on notice about the principal contents of
the certificate of sale provided he inspects the relevant book and/or
H index. [635A-C]
SMT. SHANTI DEVI v. TAX RECOVERY OFFICER 629

3.2 Therefore, .in the instant case, all that the Sub-Registrar is

-·- ·required to do is to file the copy of the certificate in Book No. l and no
more. He does not have to copy out the certificate or make any other
entries in Book No. 1. l635CI
A

4.1 Under Sections 3, 29(1) and Article 18 of Schedule I of the
Stamp Act, 1899 the liability to pay stamp duty is of the purchaser B
nnl•«" contract to the contrary can he spelt out. [635D]

In the instant case, the auction notice did not promise any exemp-
tion from stamp duty. The Tax Recovery Inspectors' Manual which

- states that both the certificate and copies are liable to stamp duty, also
renders it unlikely that any promise was given by T.R.O. at the time of
sale that no stamp duty will be payable. However, .the T .R.O. 's letter to c
the Collector of stamps referring to the legal advice given to him strikes
a some what inconsistent note. However, the issue of stamp duty is lell to
be adjudicated upou in the normal course, as and when found
necessary. [635E-G]
D
4.2 The payability of municipal transfer fee depends upon the
payability of stamp duty. It will be open to the appellants to contest this
levy in other appropriate proceedings. [637BJ

5. The Sub-Registrar is directed to file the copy of the certificate
of sale received by him from the T.R.O. in his Book No. I as required E
by section 89(4) of the Registration Act read with Rule 21 of the Income-
Tax (Certificate Proceedings) Rules, 1962. [637D]

Fatteh Singh v.Daropadi, [1908] Punj. Rec. Case No. 142; Siraj-

··-- un-nissa v. Jan Muhammad, 2 All. W.N. 51; Masarat-un-nissa v. Adit
Ram, [1883] I.LR. 5 All. 568 (F.B.) and Premier Vegetable P. Ltd. v.
State, AIR 1986 M.P. 258, referred to.
F

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos. 1936 &
1937 of 1990.
/

From the Judgment and Order dated 26.7.1989 of the Delhi High G
Court in C.W.P. No. 852 of 1989 and 2852 of 1988.

S.K. Mehta, Aman Vachhar and Atul Nanda for the Appellants.

S.C. Manchanda, Manoj Arora, V.K. Sharma and R.K.
Maheshwari for the Respondents. H
630 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1990] 2 S.C.R.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
A
RANGANATHAN, J. After hearing counsel for all parties, we --....._
grant special leave in these two petitions and proceed to dispose of the
appeals finally by this common order as the point involved is a com-
mon one. We are dealing with the matter at some length as it raises
B certain important aspects of the Stamp Act, 1899 and the Registration
Act, 1908 which are likely to come up for consideration frequently.

Smt. Shanti Devi, the petitioner in SLP No. 15093 of 1989, was
the highest bidder at an auction sale of house property bearing No.
A-205, Defence Colony, New Delhi conducted on 29.2.88 by the Tax

c
Recovery Officer (T.R.O.) for realising the income tax dues of its
owner. Her bid was accepted and the sale confirmed on 13.4.1988. On
14.4.1988 a certificate of sale was issued by the T.R.O. to the
-
petitioner. Under the relevant rules, a copy of the certificate of sale
should have been endorsed to the Sub-Registrar but it was actually .
sent to the Sub-Registrar on 12.5.1988. The petitioner in SLP No. 138
D of 1990 purchased property bearing_ No. 112-1 Ll_, Gautam Nagar,
Delhi at an auction conducted by the Income-tax department. A certifi-
cate of sale in their favour was issued on 23.5.1988. A copy of the sale
certificate was forwarded by the T.R.O. to the Sub-Registrar.

The purchasers thereafter attempted to get the property
E registered by the Sub-Registrar in their names. The Sub-Registrar and
the Collector of Stamps did not accede to this request apparently on
the ground that this could not be done unless stamp duty was paid on
the certificate of sale." On the petitioner's request, the T.R.O. also
addressed a couple of letters to the Sub-Registrar and Collector which
may be referred to here. With his letter dated 12.5.1988 to the former,
F the T.R.O. enclosed an extract from the Tax Recovery Inspectors
Manual issued by the Income-Tax department which reads as follows:

"After confirmation of sale of immovable property a
certificate in form ITCP-20 will be issued. The original of
this sale certificate is liable for stamp duty and a further duty
of Rs.4.50 is also chargeable on the copy of the sale certifi-
G
cate to be forwarded to the Sub-Registrar. These charges
(which may vary from State to State) are to be borne by the
m,<ction purchaser. The original sale certificate thus issued
will be the title for the property and it has the same value as
a sale deed and it does not require registration by the
H purchaser. Thus the auction purchaser is saved expenses of
SMT. SHANTI DEVI v. TAX RECOVERY OFFICER [RANGANATHAN, J.] 631

registration etc. This office itself will send a copy of the sale
A
certificate for registration to the concerned Sub-Registrar for
making necessary entries in his registers."
(underlining ours)

The Collector of Stamps was addressed directly by the T.R.O. on
29.9.1988 in relation to the Gautam Nagar property. In that letter the B
T.R.O. stated that he had received legal advice that no stamp duty was
payable on the certificate of sale. The attention of the Collector was
~7- drawn to the fact that a copy of the sale certificate had been sent to the
Sub-Registrar as required under Rule 21 of the Income-tax (Certifi-

- -r . cate Proceedings) Rules-!TCP rules-which runs as follows:

"21. Every Tax Recovery Officer granting a certificate of c
sale to the purchaser of immovable property sold under the
o.-r second schedule shall send a copy of such certificate to the
Registering Officer concerned under the Indian Registra-
tion Act, 1908 ( 18 of 1908) within the local limits of whose
jurisdiction the whole or any part of the immovable prop- D
erty comprised in the certificate is situate."

The Collector was requested to inform the Sub-Registrar accordingly
to make necessary entries in the registers regarding the auction sale of
the above immovable property on the basis of the copy of sale certifi-
~ cate sent to him. E

Apparently, no further action was taken by the Sub-Registrar or
Collector in the matter and, hence, each of the petitioners applied to
the Delhi High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. The
T.R.O., the Collector, the Sub-Registrar, Delhi Administration and
:.- the Municipal Corporation of Delhi were impleaded as respondents. F
The petitioner prayed for a writ of mandamus or any appropriate writ
\_ or order or direction to the respondents to register the certificate of
sale and mutate the property in the name of the petitioner. The Delhi
Administration and the Municipal Corporation were added as parties
since they did not respond to the petitioner's request to effect muta-
tion entries in the Corporation register, presumably on account of the G
petitioner's failure to pay the "transfer fees" leviable as additional
stamp duty under the Delhi Municipal Act. The writ petition was
-~ -, dismissed at the stage of admission by the Delhi High Court. The
learned Judges passed a short order to the following effect:

"Under S. 29(f), read with Schedule I (Article 18) and S. 3 H
632 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [ 1990] 2 S.C.R.

of the Stamp Act, the liability to pay the Stamp Duty is of
A the purchaser, unless there is a specific contract to the con-
trary in this regard. In this case the auction notice is silent
as to who is to pay the Stamp Duty. In other words, it does
not create liability for the Government to pay the Stamp
-
Duty. Hence the general provisions of law which are
B quoted above would be applicable. Dismissed."

Each of the petitioners has thereupon, preferred this special leave
petition before this Court.
_,
1-

On the above facts, three different and separate questions arise
for consideration: ( 1) What is the action to be taken by the Sub-
c Registrar when the copy of a certificate of sale is forwarded to him by
the T.R.O.? (2) Is the vendee in a sale by the T.R.0. entitled to ask
the T.R.O. to make entries regarding the transfer in his records on the
-
basis of the copy of the certificate of sale sent to him by the T.R.O.?
(3) What is the procedure to be followed by the Sub-Registrar when
D the original certificate of sale is produced before him by the vendee?

The first of the above questions is directly answered by S. 89 of
the Indian Registration Act, 1908. This section provides for the proce-
dure to be followed in certain situations; in particular, in cases where
sales are effected either by courts under the Code of Civil Procedure
E or by revenue officers in pursuance of a revenue recovery certificate.
Under S. 89(2), every court granting a certificate of sale of immovable
property under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, sl,all send a copy of
such certificate to the registring officer within the local limits of whose
jurisdiction the whole or any part of the immovable property com-
prised in such certificate is situate. Sub-section (4) of S. 89 makes a
F similar provision in respect of immovable properties sold by public
auction by a revenue officer who issues a certificate of sale in
pursuance of the auction. The sub-sections further provide that when
the copy of the certificate of sale is so received, such "registering
officer snail file the copy or copies, JS the case may be, in his Book No.
I." So far as sales for recovery of income-tax are concerned, rule 21 of
G the ITCP rules, quoted earlier, makes a like provision requiring the
concerned T.R.O. to send a copy of the certificate of sale to the
registering officer concerned. A doubt may arise whether the expres-
sion 'revenue officer' in S. 84 (4) of the Rgistration Act includes a
~.-
T.R.O.; and, if not, whether, without an appropriate amendment of S.
89 (2) or (4) of the Registration Act, the mere framing of a rule by the
H Central Board of Direct Taxes under the Income-tax Act, 1961 will be
SMT. SHANTI DEVI v. TAX RECOVERY OFFICER [RANGANATHAN, l.l 633

sufficient to oblige the registration officer to file a copy of the certifi-
cate of sale seni to him by the T.R.0. in his Book No. 1. In our
opinion, there is no need to read the term 'revenue officer' in any
restricted sense and that it is wide and comprehensive enough to
include the T.R.O. who effects a compulsory sale for the recovery of
an income-tax demand. We are therefore clear that, in the present
case, the registration officer has to act in terms of S. 89(4) of the B
I_ndian Registration Act read with rule 21 of the ITCP rules. This is to
file the copy of the certificate of sale received by him from the T.R.O.
in his Book No. 1.

This takes us to the second question as to whether filing of a copy
of the certificate in Book No. 1 within the meaning of S. 89 is
tantamount to the registration of the document under the Registration c
Act or it is a totally different concept. The registration of a document
unper the Act is conditional on the fulfilment of several requirements
(Ss. 32 to 35). The document has to be presented for registration by a
person competent to do so. The persons executing the document
should appear before the Sub-Registrar and admit or deny executio11 D
of the document. The Sub-Registrar may conduct an enquiry, where
needed, to satisfy himself as to the proper execution of the document.
He will decide to admit the document to registration only if he is
satisfied on this. What he has to do once he admits a document to
registration is laid down in Ss. 51 to 67. First, he is bound to endorse
full particulars and details of the registration on the document pre- E
sented to him and also obtain the signature of every person presenting
the document. He should then, without delay copy the entire docu-
ment in the appropriate book maintained for the purpose (which, in
respect of non-testamentary instruments relating to immovable pro-
perty, is Book No. 1). The entries in each book ·have to be consecu-
tively numbred year-wise and corresponding entries should be contem- F
poraneously made in current indices to be maintained in every office.
The officer should affix his signatures to the endorsements maae in
his presence and then endorse a certificate on the document that 1t is
registered together with the registration particulars which shall be
signed, sealed and dated by him. The document is then returned to the
person presenting it for registration.· The books and indices are avail- G
able for public inspection and certified copies thereof are to be given
to parties applying for them. This, in brief, is the process of
registration.

On the other hand, the process of filing that is contemplated
under the Act is somewhat different though the Act does interchange H
634 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [ 1990) 2 S.C.R.

the two expressions in some places. For instance, S. 51(2) itself refers
A to all documents or memoranda registered under section 89 being
entered or filed in Book No. 1. But there appear to be vital differences
between the two processes:
--
(i) It is the original of a document that is registered whereas only
B copies or memoranda are filed;

(ii) The executant of a document which is required to be '""\-
registered, has to present it for registration and go through the
attendant and subsequent processes described above. A copy to be
~

-
filed under s. 89 or memoranda that are filed under Ss. 64 to 66 is
simply transmitted to the concerned Sub-Registrar for being
c filed. Apparently, the procedure of presentation is dispensed
with in regard to the latter because they are issued by public
authorities discharging their official duties.

(iii) Additional particulars relevant to a document admitted to
o registration need to be got endorsed thereon from time to time as
contemplated in Ss. 58 and 59 but this rule does not apply to a
copy or memorandum filed under the Act.

(iv) When a document is registered, the entirety of the docu-
ment has to be copied out into the relevant book and the original
E document returned to the person who presents the document
with necessary endorsements. This requirement is absent in the
case of a copy or mt<morandum which is just filed.

(v) Where a document is registered, a certificate of registration
has to be issued which will be admissible to prove the due regist- ~\
F ration of the document.

There are thus some differences between the two precedures and
this aspect has been touched upon in some very early decisions under
the Registration Act, 1877: vide, Fatteh Singh v. Daropadi, (1908)
Punj. Rec. Case No. 142; Siraj-un-nissa v. Jan Muhammad, 2 All.
W.N. 51; Masarat-un-nissa v. Adit Ram, (1883] I.LR. 5 All. 568
G
(F.B.). Reference may also be made to Premier Vegetable P. Ltd. v.
State, AIR 1986 M.P. 258. We need not, however, consider for the
purposes of this case whether filing and registration mean one and the
same thing for all purposes and· what the legal effect of these differ-
ences is. For, though the processes are different, the purchaser at a
court or revenue sale is under no disadvantage because of the lack of
SMT. SHANTI DEVI v. TAX RECOVERY OFFICER [RANGANA1HAN, J.] 635

registration. The certificate of sale itself not being a compulsorily
A

-
registrable document: vide s. 17(2)(xii), the transfer of title in his
- favour is not vitiated by the non-registration of the certificate. The
copy of the certificate filed in Book No. 1 contains all the relevant
details. These details are reflected in the indices maintained under
s. 55 which are open to inspection to all persons. (We may point out
here that S. 55(2) only refers to memoranda filed but it seems clear, B
particularly in the light of various State amendments, that the index to
Book No. 1 should also contain the details of copies of document filed
~ by him). These requirements are sufficient to ensure that any person
intending to purchase or deal with the property is put on notice about
r the principal contents of the certificate of sale provided he inspects the
relevant book and/or index. It is sufficient to say, for the purposes of
this case, that all that the Sub-Registrar required to do is to file the c
copy of the certificate in Book No. I and no more. He does not have to
,,,,_ - copy out the certificate or make any other entries in Book No. I.

We now come to the last question and that is whether the certifi-
cate of sale is liable to stamp duty and, if so, what the consequences D
are. The High Court has referred to s. 3, s. 29(f) and Article 18 of
Schedule I to the Stamp Act. This provision applies in the absence of a
contract to the contrary. Primafacie, therefore, the view taken by the
High Court-and there are other decisions also to the same effect-is
correct unless a contract to the contrary can be spelt out. The auction
-o{
notice did not promise any exemption from stamp duty. The extract E
quoted earlier from the Departmental Manual (viz. that both the
certificate and copy are liable to stamp du!y) also renders it unlikely
that any promise was given by the TRO at the time of sale that no
stamp duty will be payable. Howevr the T.R.O.'s letter to the Col-
lector referring to the legal advice obtained by him strikes a somewhat
~-
inconsistent note. Even if there had been any such mention by the F
TRO or the auctioneer, the question would arise whether it can be
~- construed as a contract to the contrary bindng on the Union for the
purposes of s. 29(f) of the Stamp Act. Sri Mehta requests that we may
not now go into these questions but leave the issue to be decided as
and when the petitioners seek to have the certificate of registration
registered or introduced in evidence before any court or authority G
entitled to take evidence which is at present a remote contingency.
. _....,_ There are two provisions in the Stamp Act which provide for the
adjudication of stamp duty. Under s. 31, it is open to the executants of
any document, at any stage but within the time limit set out in s. 32, to
produce a document before the Collector of Stamps and require him to H
636 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1990] 2 S.C.R. •
•
adjudicate on the question whether the document should bear any
A
stamp duty. The Collector thereupon may adjudicate the stamp duty
himself or refer the matter to the Chief Controlling Revenue Autho·
rity of the State. In tum, it is open to the Chief Controlling Revenue
Authority to refer the matter to the High Court for an authoritative
--
decision (Ss. 32 and 56). This procedure could have been followed by
B the petitioners if they wished to seek an answer to the question
whether the certificate of sale is liable to stamp duty but they have not
done it and the time limit under s. 32 has run out. The other provision
that may become applicable is s. 33. Under this section, if any docu-
ment (and this includes a certificate of sale) is presented to the
Registrar for registration and the Registrar is of opinion that it is a
document which should bear stamp duty but that it has not been
c stamped, it is his duty to impound the document and se!!d it on to the
Collector of Stamps for necessary adjudication (s. 38). This contin-
gency has also not happened. The third contingency, also provided for
in s. 33 is when a party wishes to rely upon the certificate of sale as a
piece of evidence before a court or an authority entitled to take evi-
D dence. Such court or authority will also have to impound the document
and shall not admit the same in evidence unless the stamp duty charge-
able and the stipulated penalty are paid. This situation has not arisen
so far but may arise at some time in future. It is unnecessary to antici-
pate the same and decide the issue. We shall therefore leave the issue
of stamp duty to be adjudicated upon in the normal course,' as and
E when found necessary, and express no views thereon at this stage.

We should, howeve.r, like to deal with a contention raised in the
grounds that even if the certificate of registration is sought to be pre-
sented for registration by the petitioners, the Sub-Registrar has no
jurisdiction to refuse registration on the ground that the document is
F insufficiently stamped. As already pointed out, s. 17(2)(xii) of the
Registration Act makes it clear that the certificate of sale issued in a
court sale or by a revenue officer does not need registration. (Though
this provision, like s. 89, relates only to a certificate of sale graµted to
the purchaser of any property sold by public auction by a civil court or
revenue officer, for the same reasons as have been set out earlier, we
G think that the certificate issued by the TRO is also covered by this
provision). It is, therefore, clear that it is not obligatory on the pur-
chaser of property in a tax recovery sale to get the certificate of sale
registered in order to perfect his title. However, if he presents the
original certificate of sale to the Registration Officer for registration,
the Registration Officer will have to comply with the relevant statutory
H provisions in this regard. However this situation has not arisen as yet
SMT. SHANTIDEVIv. TAXRECOVERYOFFICER[RANGANATHAN,J.] 637

and it is unnecessary to anticipate it and decide the point. We there- A
fore do not express any opinion thereon.
---- -· This leaves for consideration the question in regard to the muni-
cipal transfer fee. No details have been placed before us on this issue.
The payability of the municipal transfer fee perhaps depends upon the
8
payability of stamp duty but our attention has not been invited to the
relevant statutory provisions or their interpretation. The High Court
has given no separate finding on this issue. We also express no opinion
~··· particularly since we are not e~ressing any opinion on the question as
to whether Stamp Duty is payable on the certificate of sale or not. It
will be open to the petitioners to contest this levy "in: other appropriate
proceedings. c
For the above reasons, we are of opinion that these appeals have
to be allowed in part. The Sub-Registrar is directed t,o file the copy of
"""r·. the certificate of sale received by him from the T.R.0. in his Book No.
1 as required by S. 89(4) of the Act read with rule 21 of the Income-tax
D
(Certificate Proceedings) Rules, 1962. The petitioners are entitled to
ask for nothing more. We express no opinion on the question as to
whether any stamp duty or municipal transfer fees are payable in
respect of the original certificate of sale. The appeals are accordingly
disposed of. There will be no order as to costs.

.,~ N.P.V. Appeals allowed partly. E