In a significant ruling affecting property transactions in Tamil Nadu, the Madras High Court has struck down Section 34-C of the Registration Act, 1908, which was introduced by the state government in 2026. The court held that the provision was unconstitutional and exceeded the powers that could be granted to registration authorities.
A division bench comprising Justices N. Sathish Kumar and M. Jothiraman delivered the judgment while allowing four writ petitions challenging the amendment. The court observed that the law effectively empowered sub-registrars to determine issues relating to property ownership and title disputes, matters that fall exclusively within the jurisdiction of civil courts.
Section 34-C imposed several conditions before the registration of documents related to immovable property could be completed. Property owners were required to produce previous original title documents and encumbrance certificates. The provision also restricted registration in cases involving mortgages, sale agreements, or missing parent documents unless additional requirements such as a no-objection certificate from the mortgagee, revenue records, police non-traceable certificates, or public notices in newspapers were furnished.
The state government had argued that the amendment was introduced as a procedural safeguard to curb fraudulent property registrations and protect genuine owners. However, the High Court rejected this argument, stating that the amendment went beyond procedural regulation and granted registrars authority to assess title claims, competing rights, and legal disputes before permitting registration.
According to the court, the primary purpose of the Registration Act is to record documents and provide public notice of transactions, not to adjudicate property rights. The judges emphasized that registration authorities are administrative bodies and cannot assume judicial functions that belong to civil courts.
The bench further noted that Section 34-C was essentially a revival of restrictions that had been struck down by courts in the past. By enabling registration officials to examine ownership-related issues, the provision interfered with substantive property laws, including the Transfer of Property Act, and violated the constitutional principle of separation of powers.
The court also held that the amendment imposed unreasonable restrictions on a citizen’s right to deal with and transfer property. Referring to Article 300A of the Constitution, the bench observed that property rights, though no longer a fundamental right, remain a constitutional right that cannot be curtailed through excessive administrative controls.
In addition to declaring the provision invalid, the court set aside a refusal check slip issued by the Karaikudi District Registrar and directed the registration of a gift deed involved in one of the petitions.
