The existing Society remains valid and continues to hold administrative authority over the complex until the statutory migration process is officially completed. 

2) An owner cannot legally refuse to provide necessary ownership documents or KYC information by claiming membership is automatic.

3) Refusing to furnish documents prevents the Competent Authority from endorsing the building's Declaration. Non-compliant owners stall the transition process and risk facing state penalties under Section 23 (Penalty) of the TNAOA for non-submission to the provisions of the Act

4)Under the 2024 Rules, the filing of Form-A (Declaration) and subsequent compilation of the Association Register require precise data regarding undivided share (UDS), carpet area, and identity. 

5) 

the overriding provision (Section 25 of the TNAOA) does not render all existing Society bye-laws void immediately

Existing Society bye-laws remain active to the extent that they are not inconsistent with the express provisions of the TNAOA and the 2024 Rules.

Dear Sir/Madam,

Pending migration, the existing Society can continue to manage the complex, but only to the extent its bye-laws are not inconsistent with TNAOA, 2022.

If there is one project, one Declaration, common UDS and common amenities, separate block associations cannot be created merely by MC/General Body resolution. Block-wise coordination is permissible only for administration, not for creating separate legal rights or separate control over common areas.

Owners may be asked to furnish title/KYC documents for migration. A nominal ₹500 administrative/admission charge may be collected if validly approved under existing bye-laws, but non-payment cannot affect ownership or UDS rights; dues must be recovered only by due process.

Any bifurcation affecting common areas/UDS would require proper amendment of Declaration, statutory approval and consent of affected owners. Disputed bye-laws/resolutions may be challenged before the competent authority/Registrar and, if required, civil court.

Advocate Saurabh Agrawal

Until the formal migration is completed and the new Association of Apartment Owners (AOA) is registered under the TNAOA 2022, your existing Society registered under the 1975 Act remains valid. It holds the legal authority to administer the complex, collect regular maintenance, and manage day-to-day operations.

Section 24 or similar saving/overriding clauses of the TNAOA do not instantly turn existing bye-laws into blank paper. The overriding effect means that if there is a direct conflict between an existing bye-law and a mandatory provision of the TNAOA, the TNAOA wins immediately. However, for non-conflicting operational matters (like security rules, standard maintenance collection, etc.), the existing bye-laws continue to operate as a transitional bridge until your new TNAOA constitution/bye-laws are formally approved by the Competent Authority.

An owner cannot refuse to furnish ownership documents or basic KYC. Refusing to provide these paralyzes the statutory migration process required by law.

If the General Body validly approved a nominal fee of ₹500 for administrative/migration expenses under the existing operating rules, it is legally enforceable as a common transitional expense. Non-payment never affects an owner's absolute property/ownership rights (which are protected constitutionally and via registered sale deeds). It only restricts their rights within the Society (e.g., losing voting rights, being ineligible to contest management committee elections, or facing recovery proceedings for dues). In Ankur Grand Flat Owners’ Association v. Registrar of Societies (2023), the Madras High Court clarified that while associations can collect legitimate operational/maintenance expenses, they cannot take unguided, coercive actions that infringe upon an owner's basic property rights or restrict physical access to their homes.

As your complex is structured under one single Deed of Declaration with a common, indistinguishable UDS and shared common facilities (like sumps, roads, gates, generators), individual blocks cannot legally split to form completely independent associations. The TNAOA 2022 explicitly recognizes one single association per project/declared property. Neither the Managing Committee nor the General Body can split the project into separate legal block associations merely by passing a majority resolution. Doing so would violate the foundational registered Deed of Declaration.

For a true legal separation, the original Deed of Declaration would have to be formally amended and re-registered. Under property law, because UDS is a shared, undivided interest held as tenants-in-common, modifying it or breaking up common areas typically requires the unanimous consent (100%) of all apartment owners, followed by revised planning permissions. Apportioning undivided common facilities (like a single main water sump or electrical transformer) across legally separate entities is an administrative and legal complication.

The TNAOA provides for a Federation explicitly to handle multi-project developments or distinct phase-wise developments where separate declarations/societies were legally carved out from the start. It is not designed to fragment a single, unified declared project into block-level silos.

TNAOA bye-laws can provide for block-wise sub-committees or block-level representation on the main Board (e.g., "Each block elects 2 members to the central management board"). However, any internal bye-law that claims a block has exclusive ownership or total administrative independence over an area marked as "common" in the master Declaration is inconsistent with the TNAOA and legally unenforceable.

The most legally compliant path is to move forward with a unified migration to the TNAOA 2022 for the entire complex. To ease internal friction, ensure the draft of your new TNAOA bye-laws includes structured block-wise representation clauses so that residents of every block feel their specific architectural or localized needs are guaranteed a voice on the central Board.

Sir/Madam,
It is suggested that until migration to TNAOA, the society is still valid and can administer the complex. The owner(s) can't refuse to furnish ownership documents/KYC required for migration by claiming that ownership itself automatically makes him a member under the TNAOA. It is not clarified that why that ₹500 is collected, if the concerned owner(s) has been part of society already. The demand of this amount can be put the functioning of office bearers of society under scanner and doubt by such members who are already part of society. If such member is part of society, his non-payment should not affect the ownership rights at any stage. After becoming part of TNAOA, the bye-laws of society would be ineffective and the bye-laws of TNAOA will be effective. 
Since there is only one project with one Declaration and common UDS/common facilities, one or more blocks legally may not form separate associations. However, for the better management it can be done if the project is big one. 

Based on the facts stated by you, the legal position may be summarized as follows.

Until the migration process under the Tamil Nadu Apartment Ownership Act, 2022 ("TNAOA") is completed in accordance with the Act and the Rules, the existing Society registered under the Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act, 1975 continues to exist and administer the affairs of the complex. The TNAOA does not automatically dissolve or invalidate an existing Society merely because the Act has come into force. Until the statutory migration is completed and the Apartment Owners' Association is constituted under the TNAOA, the Society continues to function, subject to the condition that its actions are not inconsistent with the provisions of the TNAOA.

As regards membership, ownership of an apartment under the TNAOA confers statutory rights as an apartment owner. However, during the migration process, the Society is entitled to call upon apartment owners to furnish title documents, KYC particulars and other information reasonably required for migration, preparation of the apartment owners' register and compliance with the statutory requirements. An owner cannot indefinitely refuse to furnish such documents merely by asserting that ownership alone automatically makes him a member. While ownership rights remain unaffected, compliance with reasonable procedural requirements can be insisted upon for the purpose of completing migration.

With regard to the collection of ₹500 approved by the General Body under the Society's bye-laws, such collection may continue pending migration provided the resolution is validly passed and the amount is genuinely towards administrative or migration-related expenses. Failure to pay such charges does not affect the owner's title, undivided share (UDS) or proprietary rights, although it may render the owner a defaulter under the existing Society framework and expose him to recovery proceedings in accordance with law.

The overriding effect of the TNAOA does not mean that every existing Society bye-law becomes void immediately upon the Act coming into force. The settled principle is that existing bye-laws continue to operate during the transitional period to the extent they are not inconsistent with the provisions of the statute. Only those bye-laws which are directly repugnant to the mandatory provisions of the TNAOA would become unenforceable.

On the issue of separate block associations, the facts narrated by you assume considerable importance. You have stated that the complex constitutes a single project, governed by one Deed of Declaration, with common UDS and common areas and amenities. If that is factually correct, the legal position is that the project ordinarily constitutes one apartment property under the Declaration. Neither the Managing Committee nor the General Body can ordinarily split such a project into separate block-wise associations merely by passing a resolution. Such bifurcation would affect proprietary rights, common areas and the scheme of the Declaration itself.

If any restructuring of the project into separate block associations is proposed, it would ordinarily require amendment of the Deed of Declaration and compliance with the provisions of the TNAOA governing amendment, together with the consent required under the Act and the Rules. It is not merely an administrative decision. Questions relating to redistribution of common areas, UDS, maintenance liabilities, common infrastructure and voting rights cannot ordinarily be altered by a simple majority resolution.

Your reference to Section 10 of the TNAOA is also significant. The provision contemplating a Federation where there are two or more projects having separate associations indicates that the legislative scheme distinguishes between multiple independent projects and a single project governed by one Declaration. While the precise interpretation would depend upon the language of the Declaration and the Rules, Section 10 lends support to the argument that separate associations are generally contemplated for separate projects rather than for different blocks of a single declared project having common UDS and common facilities.

Similarly, any bye-law seeking to create exclusive block administration, block-wise ownership rights or block-wise autonomy inconsistent with the common Declaration or the TNAOA may be open to challenge. Administrative arrangements for convenience may be permissible, but they cannot dilute or alter proprietary rights created under the Declaration or the statute.

Judicially, Indian courts have consistently recognised that a Deed of Declaration constitutes the governing document of apartment ownership and that common areas and undivided interests cannot ordinarily be altered except in the manner prescribed by statute. Courts have also distinguished between proprietary rights arising from ownership and administrative rights flowing from association membership. While there are decisions of the Madras High Court dealing with apartment associations, the precise issues arising under the TNAOA, 2022 are still evolving, and there is presently limited reported judicial precedent directly interpreting the migration provisions of the new Act. Consequently, courts are likely to apply settled principles governing apartment ownership, declarations, common areas and statutory interpretation while adjudicating such disputes.

Accordingly, on the facts stated by you, the stronger legal view appears to be that until migration is completed, the existing Society continues to function; owners remain owners notwithstanding non-compliance with migration formalities; existing bye-laws continue to operate insofar as they are not inconsistent with the TNAOA; and a single project governed by one Declaration and common UDS cannot ordinarily be fragmented into separate block associations merely by a General Body resolution without complying with the statutory requirements governing amendment of the Declaration and the rights of all apartment owners.