ORDER : N.Anand Venkatesh, J. This writ petition has been filed for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing the first respondent to register the sale certificate dated 26.9.2023 issued in favour of respondents 18 to 20, who are the auction purchasers. 2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner bank, the learned Government Advocate appearing for the first respondent and the respective learned counsel appearing for the contesting respondents. 3. The case of the petitioner is as follows : (i) The second respondent availed credit facilities to the tune of Rs.300 lakhs from the petitioner bank. In order to secure repayment of the credit facilities availed, the second respondent had offered to give, as a collateral security, the immovable properties at old S.No.102, R.S.No.102/1, O.S.No.102, R.S.No.102/2A ad-measuring 231 cents at Mathigiri Village, Hosur Taluk, Krishnagiri District. The second respondent also executed a memorandum of deposit of title deeds dated 08.9.2014, which was registered as doc.No.5572 of 2014 on the file of the first respondent. That apart, the second respondent deposited the entire original title deeds pertaining to the subject properties. (ii) The second respondent committed default in repayment of the loan amount. Thereafter, proceedings were initiated under the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short, the SARFAESI Act) for recovering the total outstanding loan amount of nearly Rs.3.21 Crores. After fulfilling the procedure, a sale notice dated 11.10.2018 was issued to bring the mortgaged properties given a collateral security for sale. At that point of time, the second respondent approached the petitioner bank for one time settlement (OTS) to repay back the outstanding loan amount. (iii) Accordingly, the petitioner bank sanctioned the OTS on 13.3.2019 for Rs.380 lakhs by imposing certain terms and conditions, which are as follows : "a. To accept Rs.3,80,00,000/- in full and final settlement of the account payable on or before 30.3.2019. b. Rs.51,32,680/- remitted as down payment for the OTS. c. Release of the property of vacant land measuring 32.00 Ares at S.No.102/1J (27.0 Ares), 102/2A1 (5.0 Ares), near TITAN Township, Hosur to Denkanikotta Road, Mathigiri Village, Hosur Taluk, Krishnagiri District in the name of M/s.M.D.K. Developers P. Ltd./second respondent on payment of Rs.1,50,00,000/- (the amount has been paid by way of DDs and the same has been acknowledged by the petitioner bank). d. Balance amount of Rs.1,78,67,320/- has to be remitted on or before 30.3.2019 for the release of S.No.102/2B2 measuring 46181.11 sq.ft. The original title deeds pertaining to the property shall be withheld by the bank pending release of 20000 sq.ft. and until receipt of NOC from Canara Bank, Devanahalli Branch as shown in the FMB annexed to this OTS sanction." (iv) Thereafter, a sum of Rs.2,01,32,680/- was remitted by the second respondent out of the total amount of Rs.380 lakhs and accordingly, the petitioner bank released a portion of the lands comprised in S.Nos.102/2A1 and 102/1J ad-measuring a total extent of 79 cents through a partial discharge of mortgage deed dated 16.4.2019 registered as doc.No.3334 of 2019 on the file of the first respondent. However, the second respondent remitted only a sum of Rs.80 lakhs out of the balance amount and on 30.9.2019, it was credited to the loan account and the balance outstanding amount of Rs.98,67,320/- was not repaid back, which warranted the cancellation of the OTS. (v) In view of the above development, proceedings were again initiated under the SARFAESI Act and the mortgaged land in S.No.102/ 2B2 measuring an extent of 152 cents was brought to sale through auction and respondents 18 to 20 were declared as successful bidders and a sale certificate was issued in their favour on 26.9.2023. Thereafter, the petitioner bank presented the sale certificate for registration before the first respondent, who refused to register the sale certificate on the ground that the property that was dealt with in the sale certificate was already conveyed in favour of respondents 3 to 17 through seven documents and that therefore, the same property could not be once again dealt with through the sale certificate presented by the petitioner. Aggrieved by that, the petitioner is before this Court. 4. This Court has carefully considered the submissions of the learned counsel on either side and perused the materials available on record. 5. It is seen from the records that in the partial discharge of mortgage deed dated 16.4.2019, which was entered into between the petitioner bank and the second respondent, the details as to what properties have been released and what property has been retained are found in the schedules to the document. 5. It is seen from the records that in the partial discharge of mortgage deed dated 16.4.2019, which was entered into between the petitioner bank and the second respondent, the details as to what properties have been released and what property has been retained are found in the schedules to the document. For proper appreciation, Schedule B and Schedule C are extracted as hereunder : "Schedule B Property mortgaged vide doc.No.5572/2014 and retained by the bank after partial release All that piece and parcel of the land comprised in following survey numbers with subdivisions and its respective measurements situated at new subdivided survey No.102/2B2 measuring an extent of Ac.1.52 (Hec 0 - 61.50 Ares), Mathigiri Village of Hosur Taluk, Krishnagiri District attached to the Registration District of Krishnagiri and Sub-Registration District of Kelamangalam and covered under registered sale deed doc.No.3817/2007 dated 18.6.2007. Altogether an extent of Ac 1.52 (Hec 0 - 61.50) Ares is retained out of the total mortgaged extent of Ac. 2.31 acres marked in yellow colour as per sketch annexed to this document. Schedule C Property Released All that piece and parcel of the land comprised in following survey numbers with subdivisions and its respective measurements situated at Mathigiri Village, now within Hosur Town Limits of Hosur Taluk, within the Sub- Registration District of Kelamangalam and Registration District of Krishnagiri. 1. New Subdivided Sy.No.102/1J, Dry. Ext. Ac. 0.67 (Hec 0 - 27.00 Ares) 2. New Subdivided Sy.No.102/2A1, Dry Ext. Ac.0.12 (Hec 0 - 5.00 Ares) Altogether an extent of Ac 0.79 (Hec 0 - 32.00) Ares is released out of the total mortgaged extent of 2.31 acre marked in green colour as per sketch annexed to this document." 6. On a careful reading of the terms of the the partial discharge of mortgage deed, it is clear that the mortgagor, who is the second respondent, reconfirms that the mortgage that was created over an extent of 1.52 Acres in S.No.102/2B2, Mathigiri Village, Hosur Taluk, Krishnagiri District and covered by Schedule B is retained by the petitioner bank and what have been released and discharged are only the properties measuring 0.79 cents in total situated at S.Nos.102/1J and 102/2A1, which are mentioned in Schedule C. 7. It is further seen from the records that the total extent of properties that was covered under the sale deed dated 25.4.2007 registered as doc.No.2636 of 2007 on the file of the first respondent executed in favour of the second respondent was acres 2.46 cents namely (i) in S.No.102/1 - 2 acres; and (ii) in S.No.102/2A - 0.46 cents. Out of the total extent of acres 2.46 cents, what was mortgaged was an extent of acres 2.31 cents. Further, out of the said acres 2.31 cents, what were released through the partial discharge of mortgage deed dated 16.4.2019 were S.No.102/1J measuring 0.67 cents and S.No.102/2A1 measuring 0.12 cents and in total, 0.79 cents. 8. From the above, it is made clear that under the partial discharge of mortgage deed dated 16.4.2019, an extent of acre s 1.52 cents situated at S.No.102/2B2 is retained by the petitioner bank. 9. The main ground that was raised on the side of respondents 3 to 17 was that the second respondent was allowed to sell the entire extent of acre s 1.52 cents in S.No.102/2B2, which is covered in total seven documents, that the sale consideration in each of the sale deeds was paid to the petitioner bank and that the petitioner bank was aware of the fact that the second respondent was selling the property in S.No.102/2B2 and settling the amount towards repayment of the outstanding dues. It was further contended that when the property in S.No.102/2B2 was already under mortgage, the first respondent could not have allowed the registration of the sale deeds and more particularly when the original title deeds remain with the petitioner bank. It was also contended that in the sale deeds that were executed in favour of respondents 3 to 17 by the second respondent, the petitioner bank was a party and that there has been a mention in every document that the mortgaged property was being sold only to clear the loan outstanding to the petitioner bank. 10. This Court is not aware about the arrangement between the parties and this Court can only go by the documents that have been placed. 11. As stated supra, the partial discharge of mortgage deed dated 16.4.2019 does not permit the sale of the property in S.No.102/2B2 measuring acre s 1.52 cents as it is retained by the petitioner bank. 10. This Court is not aware about the arrangement between the parties and this Court can only go by the documents that have been placed. 11. As stated supra, the partial discharge of mortgage deed dated 16.4.2019 does not permit the sale of the property in S.No.102/2B2 measuring acre s 1.52 cents as it is retained by the petitioner bank. Therefore, the second respondent did not have the authority to sell the same, which was mortgaged to the petitioner bank and which was not released by the petitioner bank vide the partial discharge of mortgage deed dated 16.4.2019. 12. The petitioner bank has taken a very specific stand that the second respondent has exceeded the terms of the partial discharge deed and sold the property in S.No.102/2B2 measuring acre s 1.52 cents, for which, no permission was given by the petitioner bank. The issue as to whether the bank officials were aware of the sale deeds that were executed by the second respondent in favour of respondents 3 to 17 and as to whether the sale consideration was straight away received by the petitioner bank is a disputed question of fact, which cannot be decided in a writ petition. 13. As per the documents produced before this Court, the property in S.No.102/2B2 measuring acre s 1.52 cents continued to be retained by the petitioner bank and hence, continued to be a property, which is under mortgage with the petitioner bank. In view of the same, the sale that was made by the second respondent in favour of respondents 3 to 17 will not bind the petitioner bank. As a consequence, there was no bar for the petitioner bank to execute the sale certificate in favour of respondents 18 to 20 pursuant to the e- auction conducted by them. The first respondent cannot refuse to register the sale certificate presented by the petitioner bank on the ground that the property in S.No.102/2B2 measuring acre s 1.52 cents has already been dealt with by the second respondent in favour of respondents 3 to 17 since those sale deeds are not binding on the petitioner bank. 14. The first respondent cannot refuse to register the sale certificate presented by the petitioner bank on the ground that the property in S.No.102/2B2 measuring acre s 1.52 cents has already been dealt with by the second respondent in favour of respondents 3 to 17 since those sale deeds are not binding on the petitioner bank. 14. While looking at this case from a overall perspective and from the standpoint of view of a reasonable man, it cannot be ruled out that some officials of the petitioner bank have played a role and assisted the registration of the sale deeds in favour of respondents 3 to 17, when they were executed by the second respondent. This is in view of the fact that the original title deeds are with the petitioner bank and that the property in S.No.102/2B2 measuring acre 1.52 cents is already under mortgage. Under such circumstances, normally, documents will not be entertained by the first respondent. However, there seems to be an unholy alliance among (i) respondents 3 to 17, (ii) certain officials of the petitioner bank and (iii) the Registration Department, which enabled the registration of the sale deeds in favour of respondents 3 to 17. Certainly, this cannot be put against the petitioner bank, which is a nationalised bank and the interests of the petitioner bank cannot be sacrificed by safeguarding the interests of respondents 3 to 17, in whose favour, the sale deeds have been executed by the second respondent without any authorization. 15. In the light of the finding that the sale deeds executed in favour of respondents 3 to 17 by the second respondent are not binding on the petitioner bank, the first respondent cannot refuse to register the sale certificate executed in favour of respondents 18 to 20. 16. In the result, the writ petition is allowed and there shall be a direction to the first respondent to entertain the sale certificate dated 26.9.2023 issued in favour of respondents 18 to 20 and register the same, if it is otherwise in order. No costs.