Judgment :- The petitioner in all these writ petitions is a financial institution and is registered under the Companies Act, 1956 and is a securitization company within the meaning of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short, ‘the Securitisation Act’). 2. Facts narrated are with reference to W.P.No. 27475/2009. The petitioner Company being a financial institution had advanced loans to the employees of the ITIA for the purpose of purchase of house sites. One such loan was given to one Purushotham, in respect of site No.1 situate at 140/90 Kogilu Village, Yelahanka Hobli. The borrower did not pay the loan amount. Hence, became a defaulter. The petitioner initiated proceedings under the Securitisation Act and obtained an order from the Chief Judicial Magistrate in C.Misc.No.81/07 on 04.01.2008. Pursuant to the said order, the company took possession of the property. The said property was put up for sale and it was sold in favour of one Smt. Koushalya. Sri K. Muthuswamy and Smt. K.Latha and a sale certificate was also issued in respect of the said site. The authorized officer of the petitioner company sent a communication on 26.03.2009 along with a copy of the sale certificate to the first respondent requesting him to enter the transaction in Book-1 as required under Section 89(4) of the Registration Act, 1908. The first respondent, however, issued a notice on 13.04.2009 for which the petitioner company has replied pressing into service certain judgments rendered by this Court as well as by the Apex Court indicating that whenever a copy of the sale certificate is sent, the same does not require registration and is exempted under the Registration Act as well as under the Karnataka Stamp Act. The said reply did not find favour with the respondents. Hence, two communications were issued by them at Annexures-H and J indicating that the required stamp duty is to be paid under Article 15 of the Karnataka Stamp Act. The said communications are impugned in this writ petition. 3. Mr. C. Krishnan, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that having regard to the provisions of the Registration Act as well as the Karnataka Stamp Act, in the first instance, a sale certificate either in its original form or a copy thereof do not attract payment of stamp duty or do not require registration. 3. Mr. C. Krishnan, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that having regard to the provisions of the Registration Act as well as the Karnataka Stamp Act, in the first instance, a sale certificate either in its original form or a copy thereof do not attract payment of stamp duty or do not require registration. He would press into service Section 17(2) (xii) and Section 89(4) of the Registration Act. So also Section 2 (J) of the Act. Hence, he submits that the endorsement issued by the respondent calling upon the petitioner to pay the required stamp duty and also the registration fee warrants interference. 4. Mr. Narendra Prasad, learned counsel appearing for the revenue supports the notice. He submits that the decisions which are sough to be pressed into service have no bearing on the facts of the case. He further submits that stamp duty becomes payable on the copy of the sale certificate and attracts registration fee also. He would press into service the provisions of Section 33 of the Karnataka Stamp Act, inasmuch as, if the document is sought to be pressed into service in any legal proceedings the same can be impounded for non-payment of stamp duty. 5. I have perused the papers and also the copy of the sale certificate which is issued. In the first instance, Section 17 of the Registration Act requires to be noticed. Section 17 of the Registration Act deals with all such documents for which registration is compulsory. Sub-Section (1)(a) to 1(e) would clearly indicate that the documents which are enumerated therein requires registration failing which the title does not pass. But however, sub-section (2) of Section 17 of the Act creates an exception and one of the exceptions is to be found at Sub-Section (2)(xii) of Section 17 of the Act which would read as follows: “Any certificate of sale granted to the purchaser of any property sold by public auction by a civil or a revenue officer” which would necessarily mean that a sale certificate is exempted from being registered. The question whether the authorized officer of a financial institution would become either a civil or revenue officer is concerned, one will have to look to Section 89(4) of the Registration Act. The question whether the authorized officer of a financial institution would become either a civil or revenue officer is concerned, one will have to look to Section 89(4) of the Registration Act. Section 89 of the Act would speak about copies of certain orders, certificates and instruments to be sent to the registering officer which are required to be filed. Sub-Section (4) of Section 89 would indicate that every revenue officer granting a certificate of sale to the purchaser of immovable property sold by public auction shall send a copy of the certificate to the registered officer within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the whole or any property comprised in the certificate is situated and the concerned officer shall file the copy in Book-1. Indeed, the revenue officer as contemplated under Section 17(2)(xii) and also Section 89(4) would also encompass the authorized officer. The authorized officer of a financial institution would act under the Securitisation Act. In the case on hand, it is to be noticed that the property of the defaulter was brought to sale after having taken possession under Section 14 of the Securitisation Act. Thus, the property of the defaulter – borrower is sold by the authorized officer who certainly partakes the character of a revenue officer. Hence that part of the mandate as contemplated under Section 17(2)(xii) and Section 89(4) of the Act is complied. 6. This takes us to the next question as to whether Article 15 of the Karnataka Stamp Act can be pressed into service to hold that even a copy of the sale certificate would attract payment of stamp duty or registration fee. Indeed, in this regard one is required to refer to Section 3 of the Stamp Act. An explanation is added to Section 3 of the Act pursuant to Act 24 of 1999 on 18.08.1999. The explanation would also undoubtedly refer to the original document which is chargeable with duty. Indeed, in this regard one is required to refer to Section 3 of the Stamp Act. An explanation is added to Section 3 of the Act pursuant to Act 24 of 1999 on 18.08.1999. The explanation would also undoubtedly refer to the original document which is chargeable with duty. In the case on hand, it is to be noticed that what is sought to be sent to the respondent is not the original certificate but a copy of the sale certificate so that the same can be entered into the register Book- I. The purpose of entering the sale certificate in register book-1 is only for the purpose to show encumbrance of the property which would necessarily mean that once an encumbrance is noted, the property cannot be brought to sale again, inasmuch, as the property has already been sold and the title has passed to the purchaser. Article 15 would speak about certificate of sale. A reading of the said provision does not indicate that a copy of the sale certificate would require registration. Indeed, the Apex Court in the case of SMT. Shanti Devi L.Singh Vs. Tax Recovery Officer And Others reported in AIR 1991 SC 1880 has observed thus: “The certificate of sale itself not being a compulsorily registrable document; vide Section 17(2)(xii), the transfer of title in favour of purchaser at revenue sale 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 Section 55 which are open to inspection to all persons. The requirements under Section 55 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 index. Thus when the copy of the Certificate of Sale was issued by the TRO conducting auction sale of recovery of income-tax dues and it was sent to the registration officer by the auction purchaser, all that the Sub-Registrar required to do was to file the copy of the certificate in Book No.1 and no more. He does not have to copy out the certificate or make any other entries in Book No.1.” [emphasis supplied] The Apex Court in the case of B.Aravind Kumar Vs. He does not have to copy out the certificate or make any other entries in Book No.1.” [emphasis supplied] The Apex Court in the case of B.Aravind Kumar Vs. Government Of Karnataka reported in (2007)5 SCC 745 has observed thus; “When a property is sold by public auction in pursuance of an order of the Court and the bid is accepted and the sale is confirmed by the Court in favour of the purchaser, the sale becomes absolute and the title vests in the purchaser. A sale certificate is merely the evidence of such title. It is well settled that when an auction purchaser derives title on confirmation of sale in his favour, and a sale certificate is issued evidencing such sale and title, no further deed of transfer from the Court is contemplated or required. In this case, the sale certificate itself was registered, though such a sale certificate issued by a Court or an officer authorized by the Court, does not require registration. Section 17(2)(xii) of the Registration Act, 1908 specifically provides that a certificate of sale granted to any purchaser of any property sold by a public auction by a Civil or Revenue Officer does not fall under the category of non-testamentary documents which require registration under sub sections (b) and (c) of Section 17(1) of the said Act.” [emphasis supplied] 7. To sum up, when a property is sold by public auction in pursuance of an order of the Court or under the Special Enactment and the sale has attained finality, it becomes absolute and the title vests in the purchaser. A sale certificate is issued to the purchaser only when the same has become absolute. The sale certificate is merely an evidence of such title. It is well settled that when an auction purchaser derives on confirmation of title in his favour and a sale certificate is issued, evidencing such sale and title, no further deed of transfer from the Court or other financial institution is contemplated or required. Indeed, Section 17(2)(xii) of the Registration Act specifically provides that a certificate of sale granted to any purchaser of any property sold by public auction by a Civil or a Revenue Officer does not fall under the category of non-testamentary documents which require registration under Sub-Section (b) and (c) of Section 17(1) of the Act. 8. Insofar as the contention of Mr. 8. Insofar as the contention of Mr. Narendra Prasad, regarding payment of stamp duty is concerned that situation has not arisen. If the purchaser presents the original certificate in any legal proceedings then section 33 of the Stamp Act would come into play. Under this provision if any document and this includes a certificate of sale, is presented to the Registrar for registration and if he is of the opinion that it is a document which should bear stamp duty and it has not been stamped, he can impound it, send it for necessary adjudication. That contingency has not happened. In the present case what is sent to the respondent is only a copy of the sale certificate for statutory compliance under Section 89(4) of the Indian Registration Act. Consequently, I am of the view that the petitioners in all these petitions are entitled to succeed. Hence, the following order is passed: .(1) All these Petitions stand allowed. .(2) The impugned endorsements at Annexures-H and J stand quashed. Rule is issued and made absolute. Mr. Narendra Prasad, learned HCGP is permitted to file memo of appearance within four weeks.