Madras High Court strikes down Section 34-C of Registration Act

Published 24 June 2026 · politics

The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court on Tuesday struck down Section 34-C of the Registration Act and held it to be ultra vires

The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court on Tuesday struck down Section 34-C of the Registration Act and held it to be ultra vires of the Constitution. Hearing a batch of petitions seeking declaration that Section 34-C of the Act was manifestly arbitrary and violative of Articles 14, 21, and 300A of the Constitution, a Division Bench of Justices N. Sathish Kumar Jothiraman held that by permitting the Sub-Registrar to exercise powers to ascertain as to whether the person executing the document possess a title over the immovable property, the impugned provision authorises an authority exercising ministerial and administrative functions to probe questions of title which are within the exclusive province of the courts. “The impugned provision is, on the face of it, unconstitutional and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution as it clearly breaches the principle of separation of powers as held by the Supreme Court,” the court said. Section 34-C of the Registration Act commences with a non-obstante clause. The Registration Act is concerned primarily with documents and their registration, and not with the underlying transactions affecting property. The rights and liabilities of parties arising out of such transactions are governed by the substantive provisions of the Transfer of Property Act, the court said.

The Registration Act merely provides the procedural framework for registration and public notice of documents, whereas the validity, effect, and legal consequences of transactions relating to immovable property are governed by the Transfer of Property Act. Therefore, any provision in the Registration Act that seeks to regulate or determine substantive rights in immovable property must be examined in the light of the scheme and provisions of the Transfer of Property Act, the court said. “As declared by the Supreme Court, the Registration Act mandates registration of documents, not the title and mere registration of document recording purchase of immovable property does not confer guaranteed title of ownership, instead it only serves as a public record of the transaction having presumptive evidentiary value, but it is never a conclusive proof of ownership. The presumption is rebuttable and can always be challenged in a court of law,” the judges said. The court held 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.