Memo No. 44420/C1/2024, 6 July 2026

What the memo does

The Tamil Nadu Registration Department's Memo No. 44420/C1/2024 dated 6 July 2026 forwards a copy of the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court common order for information. The common order was delivered on 23 June 2026 in W.P.(MD) Nos. 7415, 6183, 9526 and 16387 of 2026.

The memo was addressed to all deputy and assistant heads of the Registration Department, all district registrars and all sub-registrars. Copies were also marked to higher officials in the office of the Head of the Registration Department and to the computer section for uploading on the department website.

Legal issue covered

The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court records that the four petitions primarily challenged Section 34-C of the Registration Act, 1908. Section 34-C had been inserted by the Registration (Tamil Nadu Amendment) Act, 2026, Tamil Nadu Act 1 of 2026.

The petitioners asked the Court to declare the provision arbitrary, unconstitutional and contrary to Articles 14, 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India. Some petitions also challenged registration refusals or sought directions to sub-registrars.

Points raised in the cases

The common order records the following positions:

• The petitioners argued that Section 34-C repeated requirements previously found invalid by the Court.
• They claimed that the provision placed excessive restrictions on genuine property transactions and the right to hold, enjoy and deal with property.
• In one petition, the buyer sought cancellation of a refusal check slip and registration of a gift deed using available certified copies.
• The State argued that legislation is presumed constitutional and that the petitioners had to prove otherwise.
• The State also contended that some challenges were academic and were not supported by a concrete grievance suffered by an identified person.

Relevance to property transactions

Section 34-C may be relevant to owners, buyers, developers and professionals whose documents are presented for registration, particularly where a sub-registrar refuses registration or where certified copies are relied upon. However, the supplied text ends while describing the State's response. It does not contain the Court's final findings or directions, so no conclusion can be drawn from this extract about whether Section 34-C remains valid or how registration offices must apply it.