ORDER : The issue involved in these Writ Petitions is similar and the same are disposed of by this Common Order. 2) The brief facts as set out in the Writ Petitions, relevant for better appreciation of the petitioner’s case are that the 3rd respondent – a proprietary concern represented by the 4th respondent availed various loan facilities to a tune of Rs.4,52,17,985.49 ps., from the petitioner-bank, executed necessary loan documents and created an equitable mortgage by depositing title deeds in respect of the following properties: (a) Land admeasuring 515 Sq.yrds., bearing Plot No.274, Mayuri-II Jana Chaitanya Plots, Gorantla Village, Amaravathi Road, Guntur, purchased vide sale deed dated 17.04.2012; (b) Land admeasuring 200 Sq.yards bearing Plot No.1137, Mayuri-II, Janachaitanya Plots, Gorantla, Amaravathi Road, Guntur, purchased vide Registered Sale Deed dated 26.03.2012; and (c) Land admeasuring 240 Sq.yards, bearing Plot No.261, Arjun-II, Janachaitanya Plots, Gorantla, Amaravathi Road, Guntur, purchased vide Registered Sale Deed dated 23.04.2012. 3) The Memorandum of Deposit of Title Deeds in respect of the above properties were executed initially in the month of November, 2012 and the same were subsequently re-deposited by executing Memorandum of Deposit of Title Deeds (Combined Format) for constructive redeposit of title deeds and fresh deposit of title deeds on 30.01.2019 in favour of the petitioner-bank. In view of the default in repayment of the loan amount, Bank sold the above said properties in auction. 4) The grievance of the petitioner-The South Indian Bank Limited, is that the Registration authorities are not registering the Sale Certificates issued by the Bank under the provisions of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short `the SARFAESI Act') in respect of the subject matter properties on the premise that they have been included in the list of prohibited category in view of the order of attachment in respect of the same, which was made absolute by the learned I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Guntur in O.S.No.105 of 2020. 5) Heard Mr. Ambatipudi Satyanarayana, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner and Smt. S. Pranathi, learned Special Government Pleader representing the respondents 1 and 2. Despite service of personal notices, unofficial respondents had not caused appearance. 5) Heard Mr. Ambatipudi Satyanarayana, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner and Smt. S. Pranathi, learned Special Government Pleader representing the respondents 1 and 2. Despite service of personal notices, unofficial respondents had not caused appearance. 6) Learned senior counsel for the petitioner-bank inter alia submits that as the borrower/guarantor/mortgagor failed to discharge the loan, the account of the borrower was classified as NPA on 29.08.2021 and by invoking the provisions of SARFAESI Act, the subject matter properties were auctioned on 27.10.2023, 20.09.2023 and 15.03.2024 respectively. He submits that pursuant to the said auctions, the petitioner bank issued Sale Certificates to the respondent No.7 in the respective Writ Petitions. He submits that when the said Sale Certificates were sought to be registered, the 2nd respondent refused to register the same and the petitioner-bank on enquiries learnt that the respondent No.6 herein filed O.S.No.105 of 2020 on the file of the 1st Additional Senior Civil Judge Court, Guntur and obtained an order of attachment of the subject matter properties vide Orders dated 16.12.2020 in I.A.No.229 of 2020 and the same was made absolute on 06.10.2021. By reason of the said orders, he submits that the subject matter properties were included in the list of prohibited properties as per the provisions of the Registration Act and on that premise the Registration of the Sale Certificates were not entertained. 7) Learned Senior Counsel submits that the subject matter properties were mortgaged in favour of the petitioner-bank by deposit of title deeds prior to the order of attachment dated 16.12.2020, passed by the learned I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Guntur, therefore the same is not binding on the bank. He submits that the bank has every reason to believe that the suit is collusive in nature, got filed by the mortgagor of the bank through the 6th respondent to defeat the lawful proceedings initiated by the Bank under the provisions of the SARFAESI Act. He submits that the bank has every reason to believe that the suit is collusive in nature, got filed by the mortgagor of the bank through the 6th respondent to defeat the lawful proceedings initiated by the Bank under the provisions of the SARFAESI Act. He submits that the petitioner-Bank is not a party to the suit and as the 4th respondent, who is the owner of the property had created a valid mortgage of the subject matter properties in favour of the bank on 31.10.2019, being the secured creditor, the bank has every right to proceed against the subject matter properties, including the sale of the same by invoking the provisions of the SARFAESI Act and its rights will not be affected by virtue of the orders passed by the learned Civil Court. Referring to Section 26E and other provisions of the said Act, he contends that the debts due to any secured creditor shall be paid in priority over all other debts etc. 8) Relying on the decisions in City Union Bank Ltd., v Sub- Registrar, Peddapalli, 2018 SCC OnLine Hyd 370 = WP No.1084 & 2585 of 2017 (06.08.2018), Bank of India v The State of Andhra Pradesh, W.P.No.3892 of 2022 APHC (22.04.2022), W.P.No.44014 of 2018, dated 19.12.2018 and the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Celir LLP v Bafna Motors (Mumbai) Private Ltd., and Ors., (2024) 2 SCC 1 learned Senior Counsel contends that in the light of the statutory and legal position, the petitioner-bank is entitled for Mandamus and directions to the 2nd respondent to Register the Sale Certificates in respect of the properties referred to above. 9) The learned counsel had also drawn the attention of this Court to a Memo dated 13.05.2022 issued by the Commissioner and Inspector General of Registration and Stamps, Andhra Pradesh, Vijayawada, wherein instructions were issued to the Registration Officers with regard to the registration of the documents under the provisions of SARFAESI Act vis-a-vis the attachment orders passed by the competent Court/Registrar of Chits etc. 10) On the other hand, learned Special Government Pleader made submissions with reference to the counter affidavit filed by the 2nd respondent and supported the action of the Registration authorities in not registering the Sale Certificates in respect of the subject matter properties. 10) On the other hand, learned Special Government Pleader made submissions with reference to the counter affidavit filed by the 2nd respondent and supported the action of the Registration authorities in not registering the Sale Certificates in respect of the subject matter properties. Placing reliance on the decision of a Division Bench of this Court dated 18.04.2023 passed in W.P.No.2247 and 2259 of 2023, she contends that by virtue of the order of attachment passed by the competent Civil Court, the Sale Certificates cannot be registered and if at all the interest of the bank is effected by virtue of the attachment orders, the petitioner bank has to take necessary action to get the order of the attachment raised. She contends that so long as the order of the attachment continues, the properties which are listed in the prohibited category cannot be registered. Making the said submissions she seeks dismissal of the Writ Petitions. 11) This Court has considered the submissions made and perused the material on record. 12) On an appreciation of the rival contentions, the point that falls for consideration is as to whether the petitioner bank is entitled for registration of the sale certificates in respect of the above mentioned properties, in the facts and circumstances of the case. 13) At the outset, it may be pertinent to note that the execution of Memorandum of Deposit of Title Deeds, dated 30.01.2019, in respect of the subject matter properties and registration of the same by the Revenue authorities is not in dispute. Further, it is also not in dispute that the attachment orders dated 16.12.2020, referred to above passed by the Civil Court in O.S.No.105 of 2020 are subsequent to the creation of the equitable mortgage by deposit of title deeds in favour of the petitioner-bank. Be that as it may. 14) In view of the default in payment of the loan amount, the petitioner-bank invoked the provisions of the SARFAESI Act, and as contended by the learned Senior Counsel, after registration of the security, the debts due to the secured creditor (petitioner bank) shall be paid on priority over all other debts in terms of Section 26E of the SARFAESI Act, which reads as follows: “26E. Priority to secured creditors.—Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, after the registration of security interest, the debts due to any secured creditor shall be paid in priority over all other debts and all revenues, taxes, cesses and other rates payable to the Central Government or State Government or local authority.” 15) By virtue of the rights created in favour of the petitioner-bank through the deposit of title deeds, it is entitled to realize the secured debts by bringing the subject matter properties for sale. Following the procedure contemplated under Law, the petitioner-bank invoked the provisions of the SARFAESI Act and got auctioned the properties in question for realization of the loan amount. 16) In City Union Bank Ltd., case referred to above a Division Bench of the erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh examined an identical issue as to whether the Sale Certificates issued by the bank in favour of the auction purchasers can be refused for registration by the Registrar under the Registration Act on the pretext of an order of attachment passed by the Civil Court. While referring to the provisions of the Civil Procedure Code, the Transfer of Property Act and the Registration Act, as also the decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, the Division Bench inter alia held as follows: “…the equitable mortgage which was duly created and registered in favour of the secured creditor is much prior to the order of attachment before judgment and the sale certificate issued under the provisions of the SARFAESI Act stands altogether on a different footing under law and the order of attachment before judgment will not have any bearing on the SARFAESI proceedings.” 17) The Division Bench had also referred to decision of the Kerala High Court in South Indian Bank Ltd., v The Sub-Registrar, WP© No.3875 of 2017 dt.24.11.2016, wherein it was held that the secured creditor is entitled to proceed with the registration and the Registration authority cannot stall the process of registration under the guise of an order of attachment passed by the Civil Court. The Division Bench in categorical terms held that “the attachment effected subsequent to the mortgage created in favour of the bank do not affect the rights of the secured creditor over the subject property. The Division Bench in categorical terms held that “the attachment effected subsequent to the mortgage created in favour of the bank do not affect the rights of the secured creditor over the subject property. Such attachments have no impact on the sale conducted under the Act and the same ceases to have any effect or fall to the ground the moment the same is confirmed in favour of the secured creditor Bank and auction purchaser”. 18) In a subsequent decision, another Division Bench in Bank of India case referred to above following the judgment in City Union Bank Ltd., case and referring to the provisions of SARFAESI Act i.e., Section 26E, Section 34 etc., issued directions to the Registrar to register the Sale Certificate, inter alia, observing that the attachment orders came to be passed long after the property was mortgaged to the secured creditor. In the light of the said legal position, the contentions advanced by the learned Senior Counsel merits acceptance. 19) In so far as the decision on which reliance was placed by the learned Special Government Pleader, the fact situation is different. It appears that there is a specific direction from a Court of competent jurisdiction restraining the Sub-Registrar from registering the sale deed and in those circumstances, certain observations were made by the Court, while dismissing the Writ Petitions. But in the case on hand, by virtue of registration of the securities in favour of the Bank prior to the order of attachment, being the security creditor, the debts due to the Bank shall be paid in priority over all other debts, revenues, taxes etc., as contemplated under Section 26E of the SARFAESI Act. Since the Bank in the attending facts and circumstances conducted auction for recovery of loan amounts, the Registration of the Sale Certificates in respect of the subject properties have to be carried out without any demur. The attachment orders referred to above and the listing of the subject matter properties in the prohibited category pursuant to the attachment orders are of no consequence, cannot be an impediment for registration of the Sale Certificates validly issued under the provisions of SARFAESI Act. The point is accordingly answered in favour of the petitioner-bank. 20) In the result, the Writ Petitions are allowed. The point is accordingly answered in favour of the petitioner-bank. 20) In the result, the Writ Petitions are allowed. There shall be a direction to the 2nd respondent to register the Sale Certificates in respect of the subject matter properties as and when the same are presented without reference to the list of prohibited category of properties, if the same are otherwise in compliance with the provisions of the Registration Act and the Stamp Act. No costs. 18) Consequently, the Miscellaneous Applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.