MADURAI: The Madras High Court has annulled Section 34-C of the Registration Act, 1908, which was amended by Tamil Nadu in 2026. The court ruled that this section unjustly conferred sub-registrars with the authority to impede property registrations based on issues within civil court jurisdiction.
A division bench comprising Justices N. Sathish Kumar and M. Jothiraman deemed the provision unconstitutional and invalid, while accepting four writ petitions that challenged the amendment.
Section 34-C prohibited the registration of documents related to immovable property unless the individuals involved presented the original document and an encumbrance certificate. Furthermore, registration was restricted in cases with existing mortgages, sale agreements, or missing parent documents, unless specific conditions like NOCs from mortgagees or police non-traceable certificates were fulfilled.
The court observed that this provision merely revived previous restrictions that had already been invalidated. “Section 34-C is essentially a revival of old Rules that were previously struck down by the courts,” the bench stated.
They clarified that the purpose of the Registration Act is to document and publicly announce property interests—not to adjudicate property rights. “The intent of registration is to authenticate and publicize a document; it is not meant to resolve ownership disputes,” the court added.
The bench indicated that the amendment granted registering authorities the ability to review title, limitations, and competing rights before approving registrations. Such powers, they ruled, would infringe upon existing laws governing property transactions, including the Transfer of Property Act.
The court dismissed the state’s argument that the amendment was merely a procedural measure aimed at preventing fraudulent registrations. It emphasized that the law unjustly restricted individuals’ rights concerning property, breaching the principle of separation of powers.
“These amendments undermine the constitutional right and impose unreasonable limitations on the ability to manage one’s property, which is guaranteed under Article 300A,” the bench remarked.
The court also overturned a refusal check slip issued by the Karaikudi district registrar and instructed the registration of the gift deed in one of the petitions.
As a preventive measure against fraud, the bench directed the Inspector General of Registration to compile and disclose encumbrance details in Book I, categorized by survey number and door number.
