Madras High Court Strikes Down Tamil Nadu Law Requiring Registrar To Verify Title Before Property Registration

Section 34C of the Registration Act dealt with the production of original documents. As per the Section, the registering officer before whom a document relating to immovable property is presented for registration, shall not register the same, unless the executant produces the previous original documents by which the right over the subject property was acquired by him, along with the Encumbrance certificate pertaining to the subject property, obtained 10 days prior to the date of presentation.

The bench of Justice N Sathish Kumar and Justice M Jothiraman held that the provision was nothing but a resurrection of old Rules (Rule 55A), which was already held unconstitutional by the High Court and the Supreme Court. The court held that the new provision brought in restrictions on a person dealing with his own property, which was a fundamental right under the Constitution.

“Considering the above, the only conclusion that can be reached by this Court is that Section 34-C is nothing but a resurrection of the old Rules, which had already been struck down by the Courts. The new amendment, by prescribing constitutional limitations, reintroduces provisions that have already been held to be unconstitutional by this Court as well as by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Hence, we are constrained to hold that all the amendments are ultra vires and unconstitutional on the ground of violation of the doctrine of separation of powers, and also for overriding substantive laws governing the Transfer of Property Act. The amendments take away the constitutional right and impose unreasonable restrictions on the right to deal with one's property, which is a constitutional right under Article 300A. The right to property is not only a constitutional right but is also recognized as a human right,” the court said.

The court also noted that the amendment gave power to the Registering authority to determine title of a property, which was an exclusive judicial function and could not be entrusted to an authority whose function was purely ministerial and administrative in nature.

“Therefore, the impugned amendment effectively empowers the Registering Authority to enquire into and determine questions of title, a function that falls exclusively within the jurisdiction of competent civil courts. The adjudication of title disputes is a judicial function and cannot be entrusted to an authority whose role under the Registration Act is purely ministerial and administrative in nature. Questions relating to title can be adjudicated only by a competent civil court upon appreciation of pleadings, evidence, and the applicable law. On the face of it, this Court is of the view that the impugned provision is unconstitutional,” the court observed.

The court made the observations in a batch of pleas challenging the constitutional validity of the amendment brought in by the Tamil Nadu government to the Registration Act.

The petitioners argued that the Section was nothing but a re-packaged version of the provisions that had already been struck down by the courts. It was argued that the legislature could not reintroduce the provisions which had already been held to be incompatible with the scheme of the provisions of the Act.

The petitioners argued that even if the object behind bringing the new amendment was to prevent fraudulent registration, the measure was excessive, unreasonable, and disproportionate, affecting genuine transactions and imposing burdens beyond what was necessary. It was also argued that the provision brought in an unreasonable restriction on the right to hold and enjoy property, which violated the fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution. The petitioners thus argued that the provision was a fraud on the Constitution.

On the other hand, the State argued that the legislation was passed with the Presidential assent and stood at a higher pedestal of legislative sanctity. The state argued that there was a strong presumption in favour of the constitutionality of every legislation, and it was upon the petitioner to demonstrate how the legislation was unconstitutional beyond a reasonable doubt. In the present case, the State argued that the petitioners had not produced anything to show that they had suffered grievance.

The court noted that as per the new provision, the sub-Registrar was given the power to refuse registration where the executant failed to produce the original document evidencing his title in the property. The court held that the Registering Authority was not empowered to determine the questions relating to title.

“As already noted supra, the legislature cannot vest adjudicatory powers with the executive. Such an exercise violates the separation of powers thereby violating Article 14 of the Constitution and is also impose arbitrary and unreasonable restrictions on the right to deal with one's property, which is a constitutional right under Article 300-A. It is now well settled through a catena of decisions that the right to property has been recognized as a human right under Article 21,” the court said.

Upon perusing the entire material, the court was convinced that the present provision was a re-introduction of the earlier provision which was held as unconstitutional by the courts. The court thus concluded that the provision was arbitrary and contradictory to the law laid down by the Supreme Court under Article 141 of the Constitution.

Thus, the court held the provision to be unconstitutional and struck down the same.

Counsel for Petitioner: Mr. Sharath Chandran, for Mr. Sakthi Siddharth, S, Mr. E. Balaji, M/s. H. Jasima Yasmin for M/s. Ajmal Associates, Mr. R M. Arun Swaminathan

Counsel for respondent: Mr. T. Gowthaman, Addl. Advocate General assisted by Mr. M. P. Senthil, Counsel for State Mr. Srinath Sridevan, Senior Counsel to Assist the Hon'ble Court, Mr. S. Venkatesh Counsel for State

Case Title: M/s. Dugars v The State of Tamil Nadu and Others

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 280

Case No: W.P.(MD)Nos.7415, 6183, 9526 & 16387 of 2026