But one important point must be clear: not every property dispute can be solved by the police.

Police can take action only when there is a criminal offence involved. If the issue is only about title, ownership, partition, boundary measurement, or agreement interpretation, it usually has to be handled through the civil court, revenue department, registration department, or legal notice process.

When Can You File a Police Complaint for a Property Dispute?

You can file a police complaint if the property issue includes a criminal act such as cheating, forgery, trespass, threat, violence, impersonation, illegal occupation, or dishonest collection of money.

1. Fake Documents or Forgery

If someone creates or uses a fake sale deed, fake Power of Attorney, fake patta, fake will, fake signature, fake legal heir certificate, or false property document, it can become a police matter.

Forgery is serious because fake documents can be used to sell, mortgage, transfer, lease, or occupy a property illegally.

2. Cheating in Property Sale

If a seller takes money by hiding important facts, sells the same property to more than one person, hides a mortgage, or sells property without proper ownership, it may amount to cheating.

In such cases, the buyer can file a complaint if there is clear fraud or dishonest intention.

3. Threats, Violence, or Intimidation

If the opposite party threatens you, brings rowdies, stops you from entering your own property, damages the property, or uses force, you can approach the police.

A property dispute becomes serious when there is fear, violence, intimidation, or risk to personal safety.

4. Land Grabbing, Lock-Breaking, or Forceful Possession

If someone tries to illegally occupy land using force, fake documents, political pressure, or intimidation, a police complaint can be filed.

If someone breaks open the lock, enters the property, changes the lock, places security guards, or prevents the true owner from entering, it can become a police matter.

This is not merely a civil issue when force, threat, or illegal occupation is involved. In such cases, the complaint should clearly mention the criminal act, not just say “property dispute.”

5. Collecting Lease Deposits from Multiple People for the Same Property

If a person knowingly collects lease advances or security deposits from multiple tenants for the same property while promising possession to each of them, it may amount to cheating.

For example, if a landlord collects a lease deposit from Family A, Family B, and Family C for the same house and promises possession to all three, it is not just a normal lease dispute. If there was dishonest intention from the beginning, it can become a criminal complaint.

Tenants should keep proof such as lease agreements, payment receipts, bank transfer details, WhatsApp messages, online listings, and call records.

6. Selling the Same Property to Multiple Buyers

If the same land, house, flat, or plot is sold to more than one buyer, it may become a cheating and fraud case.

This is especially serious when the seller accepts advance amounts or sale consideration from multiple buyers while hiding earlier sale agreements or transactions.

7. Fake Owner, Impersonation, or Fake Property Documents

If someone pretends to be the real owner, legal heir, power agent, or authorised representative and collects money or signs documents, it can become a police complaint.

The same applies if fake patta, fake EC, fake building approval, fake layout approval, fake Power of Attorney, or forged revenue records are used to mislead a buyer. These frauds are common in vacant land, ancestral property, NRI-owned property, and properties where the real owner is not actively present.

8. Fake Power of Attorney Sale

A fake, cancelled, expired, or misused Power of Attorney can create serious problems in property transactions.

If someone uses such a Power of Attorney to sell, lease, mortgage, or transfer a property without proper authority, it may have a criminal angle.

9. Fake Legal Heir Documents

Property fraud can also happen through fake legal heir certificates, fake death certificates, false family tree details, or suppression of actual legal heirs.

If a person uses false heirship documents to sell or claim a property, the affected party can approach the police with supporting proof.

10. Damage to Property

Police complaint may also be possible if someone damages the property during a dispute.

This may include:

• Breaking compound walls
• Damaging gates
• Cutting trees
• Removing name boards
• Damaging construction materials
• Demolishing structures
• Destroying fencing or boundary stones

When property damage happens along with threat, trespass, or illegal occupation, the complaint becomes stronger.

11. Fake Rental Listings and Advance Scams

Fraudsters may post another person’s property online, pretend to be the owner or agent, collect token advance, and disappear.

This type of fake rental listing scam can be reported to the police, especially when payment records, chat messages, listing screenshots, and contact details are available.

12. Builder Collecting Money Without Proper Rights or Approvals

Builder issues usually go to RERA, consumer forum, or civil court when they involve delay, refund, compensation, defects, amenities, or agreement violations.

Police complaint may apply only if there is fraud, such as fake approvals, false RERA claims, no legal right to sell, forged documents, or dishonest collection of money.

13. Hiding Mortgage, Bank Loan, or Legal Restriction

If a seller hides an existing mortgage, bank loan, court attachment, bank possession notice, or legal restriction and still collects money from the buyer, it may become cheating if dishonest intention is shown.

Buyers should always verify EC, CERSAI, bank loan details, court cases, and possession notices before paying money.

14. Broker Fraud

If a broker collects advance, brokerage, or deposit using false promises, fake owner details, duplicate listings, or fake documents, police complaint may be possible.

The complaint should clearly show how the broker deceived the buyer, tenant, or property owner.

15. Tenant Issues with Criminal Elements

A normal tenant eviction issue is usually a civil matter. Police generally cannot remove a tenant just because the owner wants possession back.

But police involvement may be possible if the tenant:

• Threatens the owner
• Damages the property
• Creates fake documents
• Illegally sublets the property using fraud
• Blocks the owner through intimidation
• Uses the property for illegal activities

So, the key question is whether there is a criminal act beyond the normal landlord-tenant dispute.

16. Encroachment with Force or Threat

A normal boundary disagreement is usually civil. But if a neighbour or third party puts up a fence, shed, board, wall, or construction by force or threat, police complaint can be considered.

Photos, videos, survey records, patta, FMB sketch, and witness details can support the complaint.

How to File a Police Complaint

Prepare a written complaint with:

• Your name and contact details
• Property address and survey number
• Your ownership documents
• Sale deed, patta, EC, tax receipts, approval papers, and court orders, if any
• Details of the opposite party
• Date and time of the incident
• Clear explanation of the criminal act
• Photos, videos, messages, witness names, payment proof, or other evidence

Submit the complaint at the police station where the property is located and ask for a CSR (Community Service Register) receipt. If the matter is serious and clearly criminal, request registration of an FIR (First Information Report).

What Property Disputes Cannot Usually Be Taken to the Police Station?

Some property disputes are mainly civil in nature. Police usually cannot decide these matters:

For these issues, the proper route is usually a civil court, revenue office, registration department, legal notice, mediation, RERA, consumer forum, or a lawyer’s advice, depending on the nature of the dispute.

Important Warning Before Filing a Police Complaint.

A police complaint should not be filed merely because there is a property disagreement.

Police usually cannot decide,

• who is the real owner,
• who has better title,
• how a property should be partitioned,
• whether a boundary measurement is correct, or
• whether one party has a better civil right.

Police involvement is more appropriate only when there is a clear criminal element such as cheating, forgery, criminal trespass, threat, violence, impersonation, damage to property, illegal occupation, or dishonest collection of money.

The complaint should clearly explain the criminal act and attach proof such as documents, payment records, WhatsApp messages, photos, videos, and witness details.

The safest approach is to preserve all evidence, file a clear written complaint, collect the CSR receipt, and take legal advice if the matter also requires civil court action.

Point To Be Noted

Do not simply write, “There is a property dispute.”

Instead, clearly explain the criminal act. For example:

“The accused trespassed into my property, threatened me, and attempted to take illegal possession using fabricated documents.”

Or:

“The accused collected lease deposits from multiple people for the same property by falsely promising possession and has refused to return the money.”

This makes a big difference. Police may not interfere in a normal civil dispute, but they can act when there is forgery, cheating, criminal trespass, threat, violence, impersonation, property damage, or dishonest collection of money.

Avoid Property Disputes Before They Start.

Many property disputes start because buyers, tenants, and owners do not verify the property properly before paying money or signing documents.

Verified.RealEstate helps by checking important property risks such as title history, EC, patta, ownership details, approvals, land use, legal risks, and other red flags through AI-powered tools and on-ground verification support.

Before paying any advance or lease deposit, verify that the owner has the legal right to lease the property and confirm whether the property has already been leased or committed to someone else. Proper due diligence can help prevent such frauds.

Why Does Possession Matter?

Suppose you own a property, but another person occupies it. You should normally ask the court for:

• a declaration confirming your ownership;
• recovery of possession;
• an injunction, where required; and
• cancellation of a disputed document, if necessary.

If you ask only for a declaration, the court may confirm your ownership without ordering the occupant to leave. An execution court normally cannot give you possession if the original decree does not grant it.

What Did the Supreme Court Say in Suhrid Singh v. Randhir Singh?

In Suhrid Singh v. Randhir Singh, (2010) 12 SCC 112, the Supreme Court explained that the required relief and court fee depend on who signed the disputed document and who possesses the property.

• If you signed the disputed sale deed, you must normally ask the court to cancel it.
• If you did not sign it, you may ask the court to declare that it is invalid or not binding on you.
• If you did not sign it and still possess the property, a declaration may be sufficient.
• If you did not sign it and someone else possesses the property, you must normally seek both a declaration and recovery of possession. The additional relief may attract an applicable ad valorem fee.

An ad valorem court fee is a court fee calculated according to the value of the property or disputed document.

Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act

Section 34 says that a court should not grant only a declaration when the plaintiff could have asked for another necessary relief but failed to do so.

For example, if someone else occupies your property, you should ask for recovery of possession and not merely a declaration of ownership.

The Supreme Court has confirmed this rule in several cases:

• In Ram Saran v. Ganga Devi, the owners did not ask for possession even though another person occupied part of the property. Their suit was held not maintainable.
• In Arulmigu Chokkanatha Swamy Koil Trust v. Chandran, the title suit was dismissed because the plaintiff was outside possession but failed to seek its recovery.
• In Anathula Sudhakar v. P. Buchi Reddy, the Court explained that:
  • disputed ownership and no possession require a suit for declaration and possession;
  • clear ownership but no possession requires a suit for possession; and
  • lawful possession under threat may require only an injunction.

The Supreme Court again confirmed in 2024 that a person outside possession cannot normally seek only a title declaration. A declaration alone is generally insufficient to recover the property.

What Can Happen If the Plaint Contains a Wrong Claim?

If you falsely claim that you possess the property:

• the court may dismiss the suit;
• an interim injunction may be refused;
• the judge may doubt your other statements;
• you may prove ownership but remain unable to remove the occupant;
• you may have to amend the plaint and pay an additional court fee;
• you may need to file another case; or
• a later case may face legal objections or limitation problems.

Court Fees in Tamil Nadu

Under Section 25 of the Tamil Nadu Court-Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1955:

These are statutory valuation rules; “market value” may itself be calculated under the special formulas contained in the Act rather than simply the commercial sale price.

Therefore, for a Tamil Nadu-focused article, saying that plaintiffs claim possession merely to pay a “fixed court fee” would be inaccurate in many title-and-injunction cases.

The Key Lesson

Never claim that you possess a property merely to reduce the court fee. State the true position and ensure that every necessary relief—including recovery of possession—is included in the plaint.

A correctly drafted property suit can prevent dismissal, additional expenses and years of avoidable litigation.

Legal note: The correct relief and court fee depend on the facts, documents and applicable State law. Obtain advice from a property lawyer before filing the suit.

Can a parent orally gift a floor of a house to one child and create a valid ownership right?

Can a family claim that a property was divided decades ago without a registered partition document?

The Delhi High Court has addressed both questions in Anil Kumar Gupta v. Laxmi Devi & Ors., a significant property dispute concerning inheritance, relinquishment deeds, an alleged oral partition and an alleged oral gift of immovable property.

Justice Vikas Mahajan held that the defendants failed to establish the alleged oral partition and rejected the claim that the first and second floors of the property had been orally gifted to the plaintiff’s deceased brother. The Court ultimately recognised Anil Kumar Gupta’s 5/6th share in the property and the legal heirs of his deceased brother’s collective 1/6th share, while directing further proceedings for partition by metes and bounds.

The Delhi High Court’s records show that the suit had been pending since 2021, with earlier proceedings addressing the pleadings, evidence and interim protection concerning the property.

The Property Dispute: How Did It Begin?

The dispute concerned a residential property measuring approximately 324.2 square yards at Model Town-III, Delhi.

The property had originally been purchased by Jagdish Prasad Gupta, the father of the plaintiff, through a registered sale deed dated 24 July 1959.

Jagdish Prasad Gupta subsequently died intestate, meaning he died without leaving a Will. His wife also died intestate.

The family consisted of two sons and four daughters. Following the deaths of the parents, the children became entitled to shares in the property under the applicable succession law.

The plaintiff, Anil Kumar Gupta, initially had a 1/6th share.

The dispute arose because he subsequently relied upon registered relinquishment deeds executed by his sisters in his favour.

How Did Anil Kumar Gupta Claim a 5/6th Share?

The plaintiff’s case was that the six children inherited 1/6th share each.

Four sisters subsequently relinquished their respective interests in his favour through registered relinquishment deeds dated:

• 3 December 2011
• 22 February 2018

As a result, the plaintiff claimed:

Original share: 1/6th

+ shares relinquished by four sisters: 4/6th

= 5/6th share

The Court accepted this position. The registered relinquishment deeds had not been successfully challenged by the defendants.

The remaining 1/6th share was held collectively by the legal representatives of the plaintiff’s deceased brother, Ashok Kumar Gupta.

The Defendants’ Defence: “The Property Was Already Partitioned”

The legal representatives of Ashok Kumar Gupta contested the plaintiff’s claim.

Their principal defence was that the property had already been orally partitioned during the lifetime of Jagdish Prasad Gupta.

According to their version:

• the ground and mezzanine floors had gone to Anil Kumar Gupta; and
• the first and second floors had gone to Ashok Kumar Gupta.

They also claimed that the first and second floors had effectively been gifted by the father to Ashok Kumar Gupta.

If this argument had been accepted, it would have substantially undermined the plaintiff’s claim to a 5/6th share in the entire property.

The Court therefore had to examine whether there was credible evidence of such an oral partition and whether an oral gift could legally transfer ownership of the immovable property.

Why Did the Delhi High Court Reject the Alleged Oral Partition?

The defendants were required to establish their assertion that the property had been orally partitioned.

However, the Court found that the evidence produced by them was insufficient.

Defendant Witness -1 and Defendant Witness-2, who were family members of late Ashok Kumar Gupta, gave evidence supporting the alleged oral partition; however,

• DW-1 admitted who was just was only approximately six months old when the alleged partition took place. He admitted during cross-examination that:
  • the oral partition did not take place in his presence, and
  • he learned about it from his father.
• DW-2 was approximately nine years old at the alleged time of partition and had no documentary proof of the partition.

The Court therefore found their testimony insufficient to establish the alleged oral partition, particularly in the absence of supporting documentary evidence. The Court observed that, apart from their statements, there was no convincing evidence establishing that the alleged oral partition had actually taken place.

A Crucial Contradiction

The defendants’ own version also created a significant problem.

On one hand, they claimed that Jagdish Prasad Gupta had already divided the property between his two sons.

On the other hand, they acknowledged that the four sisters still had interests in the property and that arrangements had been made for them to relinquish those interests.

The Court found that this position was inconsistent with the claim that the entire property had already been divided between the two sons.

The first relinquishment deed was executed in 2011. The Court noted that this itself indicated that the sisters continued to have shares in the property at that time, weakening the assertion that the property had already been completely partitioned between the two brothers.

The Court also noted that the relinquishment deeds had not been challenged by the defendants.

Can Immovable Property Be Gifted Orally?

This was the central legal issue highlighted by the judgment.

The defendants claimed that Jagdish Prasad Gupta had orally gifted the first and second floors to Ashok Kumar Gupta.

The Court rejected this argument by referring to Section 123 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882.

🎇For a gift of immovable property, Section 123 requires the transfer to be effected through a registered instrument, signed by or on behalf of the donor and attested by at least two witnesses.

The Delhi High Court therefore held that an oral gift could not transfer ownership of the immovable property in the circumstances of the case.

The Court relied, among other authorities, on the Supreme Court’s decision in Gomtibai v. Mattulal, (1996) 11 SCC 681, which emphasises the requirement of a registered instrument for a gift of immovable property.

In simple terms:

A verbal statement such as “I am giving this floor to my son” is not, by itself, a substitute for the legally required registered gift instrument for an immovable property gift.

That distinction can become extremely important when property is later inherited and the next generation disputes the original owner’s alleged intentions.

The Court’s Decision

After considering the pleadings and evidence, the Delhi High Court concluded that the defendants had failed to establish:

1. the alleged oral partition; and
2. the alleged oral gift of the first and second floors.

The Court therefore recognised the plaintiff’s 5/6th share and the legal representatives of Ashok Kumar Gupta as collectively holding the remaining 1/6th share.

The Court passed a preliminary decree of partition and directed that the property be examined for division by metes and bounds. A Local Commissioner was appointed to examine whether such physical division was feasible.

A preliminary decree determines the respective rights and shares of the parties. Metes and bounds refer to the precise boundaries and measurements used to identify and demarcate the specific portion of property allotted to each party.

What Does This Judgment Mean for Property Owners?

The judgment carries a strong practical message for families holding inherited property.

• Do not rely solely on oral promises
• A gift of immovable property requires proper documentation
• Relinquishment deeds can materially change inheritance shares
• An old family arrangement can become a title dispute
• Living on a particular floor of a house for many years does not, by itself, establish legal ownership of that floor

.Where title is disputed, courts examine the legal documents, succession, evidence of partition, transfers and other relevant circumstances.

Oral Partition vs Oral Gift: An Important Distinction

The judgment does not mean every oral family partition is invalid. The defendants failed to prove the particular partition they alleged.

• An oral partition concerns whether it occurred and was sufficiently proved.
• By contrast, Section 123 of the Transfer of Property Act requires a registered instrument for gifts of immovable property.

Thus, the two propositions should not be treated as identical.

To conclude :

When ownership changes, document it properly. A verbal family understanding may last for years—but a title dispute can last even longer.

Frequently Asked Questions

Can a parent orally gift a house or floor to a child?

Generally, no. A gift of immovable property requires a registered instrument under Section 123 of the Transfer of Property Act.

Can an oral family partition be claimed in court?

Yes, but it must be proved with credible evidence.

Did the Delhi High Court physically divide the property?

No. It passed a preliminary decree and appointed a Local Commissioner.

Why were the relinquishment deeds important?

They supported the plaintiff’s claim to the additional 4/6th share.

This comprehensive analysis breaks down the case details, the legal standing of ancestral properties, and how the Law of Limitation can completely alter the outcome of a partition suit.

The Core Legal Dispute

The crux of this case involves a classic conflict between a family member’s birthright to ancestral property and their obligation to assert that right within the legally mandated timeframe.

The primary questions before the Court were:

1. Does an ancestral property lose its character after a family partition?
2. Can a Hindu father execute a settlement deed gifting the entirety of joint family property to his daughter?
3. Can a partition suit be maintained if it is filed well past the 12-year statutory limitation period?

Factual Background & Timeline of the Case

To understand how the Madras High Court arrived at its definitive ruling, we must look at the chronological order of events:

• March 5, 1977 (The First Partition): The properties originally belonged to the grandfather, Ponnusamy. Following his demise, a registered partition deed was executed among his heirs. Under this deed, the suit properties were explicitly allotted to his son, Kullan @ Sachidanandam (the father), as ancestral property.
• The Heirs: Kullan had two children: a son named Palani (the plaintiff) and a daughter named Saraswathi (the defendant).
• April 12, 2002 (The Settlement Deed): Asserting that his daughter was the one caring for him, Kullan executed a registered settlement deed transferring the entirety of these joint family properties to Saraswathi.
• 2003 (Active Knowledge of the Deed): Anticipating opposition from her brother, Saraswathi filed a lawsuit (O.S.No.161 of 2003) to assert her title. Though this particular suit was later dismissed for non-appearance, it legally established that the son, Palani, had active knowledge of the settlement deed as early as 2002–2003.
• August 8, 2007: The father, Kullan, passed away.
• April 10, 2018: Saraswathi executed multiple sale deeds, transferring and selling parts of the property to her children and third-party buyers.
• 2018 / 2019 (The Partition Suit): Objecting to the sale of the lands, Palani filed a partition suit (O.S.No.141 of 2019) demanding his 50% share and asking the court to declare his father’s 2002 settlement deed and his sister’s subsequent sales null and void.

The Lower Court vs. The Madras High Court Verdict

The Trial Court’s Verdict: Victory for the Son

The Additional District Judge of Dharmapuri initially ruled in favor of the son, Palani. The trial court noted that because the property was ancestral, the father lacked the sole authority to settle the whole property onto the daughter. It declared the settlement deed invalid and granted the son his half-share.

Saraswathi passed away during the litigation, prompting her legal heirs to appeal the decision to the Madras High Court.

The Madras High Court Ruling: The Law of Limitation Wins

Presided over by Justice P.B. Balaji, the Madras High Court set aside the trial court’s order. While the High Court agreed with the legal status of the property, it ultimately dismissed the son’s claim based entirely on the Law of Limitation.

Key Legal Principles Established by the High Court

1. Character of Ancestral Property

Citing landmark Supreme Court rulings such as Arshnoor Singh Vs Harpal Kaur and Shyam Narayan Prasad Vs Krishna Prasad, the High Court reiterated that when a coparcener obtains property through a partition, it retains its ancestral character concerning his own male/female issues. Therefore, the father did not have the right to gift the entire property away; he could legally settle only his specific undivided share.

2. The 12-Year Clock Under the Limitation Act

Despite the father’s error in settling the whole property, the High Court held that the law does not protect those who sleep on their rights.

• Under Articles 109 and 110 of the Limitation Act, any lawsuit challenging the alienation of joint family property or seeking a share by an excluded co-owner must be filed within 12 years.
• Because the settlement deed was a registered public document and the 2003 lawsuit proved Palani knew about it, the 12-year clock began ticking in 2002–2003.
• Palani’s argument that the limitation period should start from 2014 (when the revenue Patta names were updated) was outright rejected. The court held that a delay in revenue name changes does not stall the statutory period of limitation.

3. Long Silence Equals Loss of Rights

By waiting 16 years (from 2002 to 2018) to take formal legal action, the son became an “excluded co-owner.” His prolonged silence and inaction legally barred him from claiming his share, rendering his suit completely time-barred.

Key Takeaway for Property Owners

The judgment reinforces a vital lesson in Indian property litigation: Rights must be enforced dynamically. Even if a family property transaction or settlement deed is technically illegal under Hindu Law, waiting too long to dispute it can result in total loss of your property rights. If you intend to challenge a fraudulent or unauthorized property settlement, you must approach the court within the strict 12-year window provided by the Limitation Act.

 Identify the Issue

The problem arises when your property’s survey number, either in part or whole, gets added to another person’s sale deed. This might occur during the sale of multiple survey-numbered properties, and your property’s number is either mistakenly or deliberately included.

Unintentional or Deliberate Inclusion

Sometimes, the inclusion of your property’s survey number is accidental—a simple clerical error. Other times, it is done deliberately to create confusion and lay claim to part of your land.

How It Appears in Official Records

Once the sale deed with your property’s survey number is registered, it will reflect in the Encumbrance Certificate (EC). This creates unnecessary complications and might lead to legal entanglements.

Possible Consequences

If left unchecked, this erroneous deed can be used as a foundation for further transactions—such as a resale, mortgage, or settlement deed—creating an even bigger legal mess.

Why Do They Do It?

This could happen due to typographical errors, or in some cases, the buyer may deliberately include your property to create legal challenges, hoping to eventually claim ownership. In other instances, it might be an attempt to show larger landholdings for purposes such as securing bigger loans or obtaining higher compensation in cases like accident claims.

Possible Culprits

The person behind this act could be someone close to you—relatives, neighbors, business partners, or even unscrupulous real estate agents. Typically, those familiar with your land are more likely to commit such deeds.

First Step: Open Communication

Once you discover that your property has been included in someone else’s deed, the first step is to approach the person responsible. Remain calm, and inquire whether it was an honest mistake or an intentional act to encroach on your property.

If It Was a Mistake

If the individual admits that it was a mistake, you can both file a joint petition with the Sub-Registrar to rectify the error. Submit the necessary documents to ensure that the wrong survey number is corrected, and prevent future legal issues.

If They Don’t Cooperate

However, if the person refuses to cooperate or claims that their deed is valid, your next move should be to protect your property physically. If there are no fences or boundary walls, consider erecting one immediately to deter any encroachment.

Gather Evidence of Ownership

Ensure you have all relevant documents—such as the title deed, previous sale deeds, patta (land registry document), chitta (land revenue record), and any maps—proving your ownership. These will be crucial for any legal actions you take.

Notify the Registrar

With your documents in hand, file a formal complaint with the Registrar’s office, citing the erroneous inclusion of your survey number in the other person’s deed. Explain that the property has been wrongly documented and request that the sale deed be revoked under Section 68/2 of the Registration Act, 1908.

Send a Registered Notice

Send a registered letter to the District Registrar with all the necessary details. Include the survey numbers, copies of your documents, and the registration number of the fraudulent deed. This serves as an official request to cancel the incorrect registration.

Meet the Registrar in Person

Once you’ve sent the registered letter, follow up by visiting the District Registrar’s office in person. Present your complaint along with your documents, and request a formal investigation into the fraudulent registration.

Issue a Legal Notice

Additionally, send formal notices to the local municipal offices—such as the panchayat, town, or city council—informing them that no taxes or permits should be issued against the property in question, as it belongs to you.

Notify Financial Institutions

Send similar letters to local cooperative banks, agricultural banks, and nationalized banks, informing them that the property is under dispute and should not be accepted as collateral for any loans or mortgages.

Involve Law Enforcement

If necessary, file a police complaint against the individual who included your property in their deed. Accuse them of forgery and fraud, and request a formal investigation. The police might question the individual and possibly deter further fraudulent actions.

Wait for the Registrar’s Action

Once your complaint is filed with the Registrar, they will either order the cancellation of the fraudulent deed or suggest that you pursue the matter in court. This process can take time, so patience is essential.

Legal Recourse

If the Registrar’s office cannot resolve the issue, consider filing a case in civil court. Begin with mediation or arbitration centres for a cost-effective resolution. If that doesn’t work, take the matter to civil court for a final decision.

If you’d prefer to have everything handled for you seamlessly, you can click  here and contact us at verified.realestate. Our team of experts is here to provide comprehensive support and ensure a smooth and secure property buying experience.