Advertisement
What really powers the cloud? Behind every Google search, A...
A lot of what defines a home isn’t visible at handover. I...
Private equity has played a significant role in shaping Indi...
Luxury real estate is one of the most talked-about segments ...
Airports play a much bigger role than just enabling travel -...
The Madras High Court has struck down Section 34-C of the Registration Act introduced by the Tamil Nadu government, holding that registration authorities cannot decide issues relating to property title or refuse registrations on that basis. The court observed that title disputes fall within the jurisdiction of civil courts and directed the registration department to improve encumbrance records. The ruling is expected to bring greater clarity to property transactions and limit the role of registrars to administrative functions.
The Madras High Court has struck down Section 34-C of the Registration Act, a provision introduced by the Tamil Nadu government that empowered registration authorities to refuse registration of property documents in certain cases, including where original title deeds were unavailable.
A division bench comprising Justices N. Sathish Kumar and M. Jothiraman ruled that registration officials perform administrative functions and cannot assume the role of deciding questions relating to ownership and title, which fall exclusively within the jurisdiction of civil courts.
The provision had been challenged through a batch of petitions that argued the amendment imposed additional burdens on genuine transactions and effectively conferred adjudicatory powers on sub-registrars. Petitioners contended that the amendment was similar to provisions that had earlier been held invalid and that it interfered with rights available under existing property laws.
While defending the amendment, the state had maintained that the measure was intended to prevent fraudulent registrations and safeguard property owners. However, the court observed that such objectives could not justify granting registration authorities powers to examine and determine title-related issues.
The bench noted that the effect of Section 34-C directly interfered with provisions of the Transfer of Property Act and enabled registration authorities to undertake functions beyond their statutory mandate. It stated that questions relating to ownership and competing claims over property can only be adjudicated by competent civil courts.
The court also expressed concern that making production of original parent documents mandatory could lead to unintended consequences and create difficulties in genuine transactions. It observed that the absence of original documents should not automatically prevent registration in all circumstances.
At the same time, the bench acknowledged the need for greater transparency in property transactions. It directed the Inspector General of Registration to prepare and publish comprehensive encumbrance records in Book I, indexed survey number-wise and door number-wise across sub-registrar offices in the state. The exercise is to be carried out in phases within a stipulated timeframe.
The ruling is expected to affect property registration procedures across Tamil Nadu by limiting the role of registration officials to administrative scrutiny and reaffirming that disputes relating to ownership and title must be resolved through judicial proceedings rather than administrative decisions.
Advertisement
Facebook
Whatsapp
