ORDER : SUBBA REDDY SATTI, J. Heard Sri K.M.Kishore, learned counsel representing Smt.V.Dyumani, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri G.Divya Theja, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Stamps & Registration for the respondents 1 to 3, and Sri T.Nagarjuna Reddy, learned counsel for the respondents 4 to 9. There is no representation on behalf of respondents 11 and 12. 2. The petitioner, a financial institution, filed the above writ petition impugning the letter of the 3 rd respondent vide No.E/22/2024, dated 26.02.2024, as illegal and arbitrary. 3. a) Averments in the affidavit, in brief, are that the 4 th respondent availed a home loan of Rs.22 lakhs and ABPTL loan of Rs.20 lakhs from the Andhra Bank, Madanapalli Branch (amalgamated with Union Bank of India with effect from 01.04.2020) against the security of residential land and building (GF+FF+SF) bearing D.No.15-5-15, admeasuring 146.66 square yards, Plot No.12 and 13, S.No.310-1 situated at Bandameeda Kammapalle village, Ratnakonda Reddeppa Naidu Colony Extension, Madanapalli Mandal. The 4 th respondent created a mortgage on 09.02.2015 over the secured asset by depositing the title deed under Section 58 (f) of the Transfer of Property Act, and the same was registered as deed No.792 of 2015 in the Joint Sub Registrar Office, Madanapalli. b) The 4 th respondent committed default in payment of dues per the agreed terms, and as such, he was declared as NPA. The proceedings under the SARFAESI Act were initiated, and the demand notice dated 17.10.2022 under Section 13 (2) of the Act was issued for payment of Rs.30,78,401.75p. Thereafter, by following the procedure, the e-auction notice dated 23.01.2024 was issued, fixing the date of auction on 14.02.2024. In the e-auction, the secured asset was sold for an amount of Rs.87,51,000/- and the bid was knocked down in favour of the 11 th respondent-Pulli Mahesh Kumar Reddy. The auction purchaser deposited the entire amount, and thereafter, the petitioner issued a sale certificate on 21.02.2024. The auction purchaser visited the 3 rd respondent to ascertain the stamp duty and registration fee payable on the certificate of sale. The 3 rd respondent informed that the respondents 5 to 10 filed suits for recovery of money, and an order of attachment was served on the 3 rd respondent. c) The 5 th respondent filed suit O.S.No.67 of 2022 on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Madanapalli, based on a simple mortgage dated 30.06.2021. The 3 rd respondent informed that the respondents 5 to 10 filed suits for recovery of money, and an order of attachment was served on the 3 rd respondent. c) The 5 th respondent filed suit O.S.No.67 of 2022 on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Madanapalli, based on a simple mortgage dated 30.06.2021. The Court granted an order to garnishee on 25.03.2023. The 6 th respondent filed suit O.S.No.9 of 2023 on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Madanapalli, based on a promissory note dated 07.04.2022 executed by the 4 th respondent and an order of attachment was passed by the Court in I.A.No.43 of 2023 on 07.02.2023, which was made absolute on 12.05.2023. The 7 th respondent filed suit O.S.No.107 of 2024 on the file of Junior Civil Judge, Madanapalli, based on a promissory note dated 15.08.2021 executed by the 4 th respondent and an order of attachment was passed by the Court in I.A.No.53 of 2024 on 09.02.2024. The 8 th respondent filed suit O.S.No.1019 of 2022 on the file of Junior Civil Judge, Madanapalli, based on a promissory note dated 30.12.2020 executed by the 4 th respondent and an order of attachment was passed by the Court in I.A.No.1312 of 2022 on 26.12.2022. The 9 th respondent filed suit O.S.No.246 of 2023 on the file of Junior Civil Judge, Madanapalli, based on a promissory note dated 24.06.2020 executed by the 4 th respondent and an order of attachment was passed by the Court in I.A.No.61 of 2023 on 31.03.2023, which was made absolute on 15.09.2023. The 10 th respondent filed suit O.S.No.76 of 2021 on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Madanapalli, based on an agreement of sale dated 19.11.2020 executed by the 4 th respondent, and an order of attachment was passed by the Court in I.A.No.315 of 2021 on 20.12.2021. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the 4 th respondent originally mortgaged the property vide registered deed No.792 of 2015 dated 09.02.2015, and the orders of attachment referred to supra are after the mortgage and hence, the Sub Registrar cannot deny registration of the documents. Learned assistant government pleader and learned counsel appearing for owners of the property supported the action of the registering authority. 5. Now, the point for consideration is: Whether the writ petitioner is entitled to the relief? 6. Learned assistant government pleader and learned counsel appearing for owners of the property supported the action of the registering authority. 5. Now, the point for consideration is: Whether the writ petitioner is entitled to the relief? 6. An attachment before judgment, either under Order XXXVIII Rule 5 and 10 or Order XXI Rule 54 secures the interest of the plaintiff or the decree holder, preventing the defendant or judgment debtor from transferring the property. The attachment of property, per se, will not create any right in the property. Its object is to prevent the defendant’s attempt to defeat a prospective decree and a sort of guarantee against the decree becoming infructuous. 7. Whereas, a mortgage under Section 58 of the Transfer of Property Act is concerned, it is a transfer of an interest over the specific immovable property for the loan repayment. Thus, the mortgage gives the lender a security interest in the property. Unlike a sale, the complete ownership will not be transferred in a mortgage. 8. When the mortgage was subsisting, a suit was filed, and therein an attachment before judgment order was passed by the Civil Court. The attachment effected after the mortgage was created in favour of the bank does not affect the rights of the secured creditor over the subject property. 9. The Division Bench of the composite High Court of Andhra Pradesh in City Union Bank Ltd. Vs. Sub-Registrar, Peddapalli and Ors. 2018 Supreme (AP) 333 : 2018 (6) ALD 16 : 2018 (5) ALT 279 (DB) , considered the identical issue and held in Paragraphs-14 and 15 as follows: “14. The preponderance of judicial opinion leads to the irresistible conclusion that the sale of the mortgaged property in favour of the auction purchaser and the sale certificate under the SARFAESI Act in such circumstances is free of all encumbrances. The attachments 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. 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. Otherwise, those attachments would remain as a permanent taboo prejudicially affecting the marketability and title to the property even though they ceased to have any legal efficacy and thereby it becomes necessary to register the sale certificate. 15. Taking into account all these aspects and reckoning the law in the subject as discussed above, this Court has no hesitation to hold that the secured creditor is entitled to succeed in these writ petitions. The writ petitions are accordingly allowed directing the first respondent in both the writ petitions to register the sale certificates in accordance with the Registration Act.” 10. Case at hand, the property was mortgaged by 4 th respondent on 09.02.2015 with the petitioner-bank and the different civil suits filed by the respondents 5 to 10 and the attachment orders issued therein, are after the mortgage executed by the 4 th respondent in favour of the petitioner-bank. The ratio laid down in the judgment referred to supra is squarely applicable to the facts of this case. 11. Given the facts and circumstances of the case, the Writ Petition is allowed and the letter issued by the 3 rd respondent vide Letter No.E/22/2024, dated 26.02.2024 (Ex.P1) is hereby set aside. The 3 rd respondent shall receive and process the sale certificate issued by the petitioner in respect of residential land and building (GF+FF+SF) bearing D.No.15-5-15, admeasuring 146.66 square yards, Plot No.12 and 13, S.No.310-1 situated at Bandameeda Kammapalle village, Ratnakonda Reddeppa Naidu Colony Extension, Madanapalli Mandal, strictly per the Registration Act, 1908. No order as to costs. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.