Property disputes & fraudulent sale deeds: rising land litigation in J&K — legal analysis and safeguards

Property is not merely an asset in Jammu & Kashmir; for many families it embodies inheritance, livelihood and identity.

Advocate Adnan Magray

The last decade has witnessed an alarming increase in property litigation across Jammu & Kashmir. Two recurring themes stand out: (1) the large number of registered instruments and revenue mutations now being challenged as forged or mala fide, and (2) misuse of Powers of Attorney (PoAs) and revenue records to effect clandestine transfers. The consequences are profound — dispossession of lawful owners, long-drawn civil suits, criminal prosecutions and public distrust in land records and registries. This article analyses the legal landscape, highlights decisive authorities, explains the limited role of registration and mutation machinery, and sets out practical safeguards citizens should adopt.

The problem in brief

Recent matters before the High Court and revenue authorities show a pattern: instruments ostensibly executed by owners or their heirs are later alleged to be forged; PoAs are relied upon to register sales without due verification; and mutations in revenue records are obtained and then relied upon to claim title. In several reported matters the revenue appellate authorities have held certain mutations to be outcomes of fraud, underscoring that the problem is institutional and recurring.

What registration and mutation actually achieve — legal limits

Two legal propositions must be stressed at the outset.

First, the act of registration primarily gives public notice of an instrument; it does not ipso facto adjudicate title. The Supreme Court has repeatedly held that registration is not a substitute for title investigation — buyers and transferees must make reasonable inquiries and satisfy themselves as to title before acquisition. The Sub-Registrar’s role is ministerial; registration does not validate title where fraud or forgery later appears.

Second, a mutation attested in revenue records is a record of what the revenue machinery has entered; it is not conclusive proof of legal title. Revenue authorities have jurisdiction to examine the correctness of mutations, and appellate orders have set aside mutations obtained by fraud. Recent J&K authorities have declared certain mutations vitiated by fraud and restored the record to prior position.

These limits mean that a registered sale deed plus mutation may still be declared void or cancelled by a competent civil court if it is shown to be forged or obtained by fraud.

Key legal principles and case law

A few legal principles and authorities govern disputes over alleged forged sale deeds and misuse of PoAs:

1. Burden of proof in forgery allegations. The Supreme Court has held that the party alleging forgery carries the initial burden to make out sufficient prima facie material; the onus may shift depending on the factual matrix, but courts will scrutinise evidence (handwriting opinion, contemporaneous documents, witnesses, digital trails). Practically, establishment of forgery requires cogent evidence and is not lightly inferred.
2. Power of Attorney cannot by itself transfer title. A PoA is a delegatory instrument; it confers authority to act but does not itself create ownership. Execution of a valid, registered sale deed is necessary for transfer of title; misuse of PoAs to effect commercial sale can be invalidated if not authorised or if the PoA itself is forged or revoked. Judicial pronouncements make clear that PoAs are revocable and their misuse is actionable.
3. Registrar’s limited powers. The Registrar/Sub-Registrar ordinarily has no power to cancel a registered instrument on grounds of fraud; cancellation usually requires a judicial declaration. If a Registrar attempts to “cancel” a deed without a court decree, affected parties can challenge such action — and courts have emphasised the need for judicial adjudication on title or fraud.
4. Revenue remedy and civil remedy run concurrently. Where mutations are shown to be fraudulently attested, revenue appellate authorities (e.g., Commissioner (Revenue), Financial Commissioner) have jurisdiction to set them aside; parallel civil suits for cancellation and declaration are common. J&K case law demonstrates revenue remedies being exercised to correct the public record.

Practical consequences for owners and purchasers

A purchaser who registers a deed without adequate enquiry does so at risk. Registered title is vulnerable to prior equitable/legal rights (undischarged mortgages, pending suits, earlier claims). The doctrine of caveat emptor and duty of reasonable inquiry is repeatedly reiterated by courts.

Owners who discover forged instruments must pursue both civil relief (declaration and cancellation of deed, injunctions) and criminal remedies (forgery, cheating, criminal conspiracy). Prompt action is crucial: long delays can strengthen the opponent’s defence (e.g., limitation, possession-based claims).

Revenue mutations may be provisional; the record must be corrected through statutory appeals where fraud appears.

What citizens should do — a checklist of safeguards

For property owners, buyers, lawyers and registrars, the following practical steps reduce risk:

1. Verify original documents before any transaction. Insist on production of original title deeds, chain of title, certified copies of mutation and prior registered instruments. Obtain certified extracts of RoR (Record of Rights), khasra/khatauni documents where applicable.
2. Check revenue and municipal records personally. Visit the Tehsildar / Revenue office and the Sub-Registrar’s office to confirm that no adverse mutation or charge exists. Certified entries from revenue records are often decisive in early detection.
3. Authenticate PoAs and identity. If a PoA is involved, insist on a registered PoA specific to the transaction (preferably irrevocable only in narrow circumstances), check antecedent signatures, and verify the principal’s acknowledgment in person or through secure telephonic/video call. Do not accept unsigned or stale PoAs.
4. Cross-verify execution and attestation. Seek witness affidavits and independent verification of the executant’s signature (e.g., by local panchayat, gazetted officer, or two independent witnesses). For elderly or infirm executants, require medical certificates or video evidence of execution to guard against later forgery claims.
5. Require title insurance or escrow where feasible. For high-value transactions, title insurance and escrowed payments protect buyers against hidden defects.
6. Engage counsel for title search. A thorough title search by a local practitioner will reveal prior litigation, mortgages, or caveats that may not be visible to lay purchasers.
7. Act promptly on suspicious instruments. If an owner suspects forgery or misuse of PoA, revoke PoA immediately in writing, file a police complaint, obtain urgent injunctions from civil court, and seek revenue appeals to suspend contested mutations.

Remedies available — procedural road map

Civil suit for declaration and cancellation under the Civil Procedure Code and Specific Relief Act: seek a decree declaring the deed void and directing cancellation from public records. Judicial declarations are critical because registrars cannot unilaterally cancel registered instruments.

Injunctions: seek interim injunctions to restrain transfer, sale or encumbrance pending trial.

Revenue appeal: file an appeal before the competent revenue authority to set aside a fraudulent mutation. J&K precedents show revenue authorities willing to restore proper record in proven fraud.

Criminal action: lodge FIRs for forgery (IPC), cheating and criminal conspiracy where documentary fabrication, impersonation or forged signatures are involved. Criminal proceedings can run alongside civil suits.

Forensic evidence: engage handwriting experts, digital forensics (for SMS/WhatsApp/e-mail trails), and verification of registrar records; courts increasingly accept well-founded forensic material.

The role of the Bar and the State

The legal profession and the State have a shared duty. Advocates must advise clients on rigorous due diligence; the registry and revenue machinery must strengthen verification protocols (photo-identity checks, biometric authentication where possible, digital records cross-verification). The legislature and executive should consider procedural reforms — clearer statutory safeguards for PoAs, standardized authentication protocols at registration, and faster specialist mechanisms to decide disputes involving alleged forged instruments.

Conclusion

Property is not merely an asset in Jammu & Kashmir; for many families it embodies inheritance, livelihood and identity. The surge in litigation arising from fraudulent sale deeds and manipulative mutations threatens social and economic stability. Law provides remedies, but the first line of defence remains prudent preventive action: careful title verification, robust authentication of executants and PoAs, swift redress when fraud is suspected, and sustained institutional reforms in registration and revenue processes. Courts will continue to play a decisive role in vindicating rights, but prevention and awareness are the most effective remedies today.

_{(STRAIGHT TALK COMMUNICATIONS EXCLUSIVE. The author is Advocate, Jammu & Kashmir High Court | Panel Counsel, Northern Railways & J&K Bank)}