When we buy a property, it is natural to assume that the registered sale deed establishes that the seller is the owner and that we have now become the owner. But that is not quite how the Indian system works. India largely follows what is described as a presumptive title system through registration. More simply, it is a system of registering deeds or documents, rather than a system in which the government’s register itself conclusively establishes ownership. Registration creates a public record of the transaction and gives it presumptive evidentiary value, but it does not by itself guarantee ownership.
Please also read: The underestimated risk of encumbrance in real estate investing (which equity doesn’t have).
About the author: Manmohan Sethumadhavan is a freelancer, investor, and personal finance enthusiast “in search of the absolute truth.” You can follow Manu on Twitter @ManuTsr. He is the author of the popular Revised Capital Gains Taxation Rules Ready Reckoner for FY 2025-2026.
What determines whether a person actually owns a piece of land? There is no single answer contained in one document. Ownership may have to be understood by looking at the source and history of the property – earlier sale deeds, inheritance, partition, gifts, court orders, government orders, revenue and survey records, and restrictions imposed by various laws. Depending on the property, matters such as land-ceiling laws, acquisition proceedings, tenancy laws, succession laws and other statutory restrictions may also become relevant.
There is also another complication. Land administration is largely a State subject, and land records, surveys, revenue systems and procedures therefore vary from State to State. Even within a State, different types of property and different legal situations can require different records or procedures. Personal law affects succession in applicable cases.
🔥Secure your future with our Robo-advisory tool trusted by over 3,500 investors and advisors. From effortless retirement planning to funding your children’s biggest dreams, turn your financial goals into reality. 🔥
Subscribe for money management solutions via email! (Link takes you to our email sign-up form) Join 32,000+ readers in our community.
👉 New Tool Alert! NaviPlan: A Privacy-Focused Multi-asset Tracker and Goal Planner 👈
This is the basic idea behind a deeds-based system. The person buying the property may therefore have to reconstruct the history of ownership and satisfy himself that the seller has a good and transferable title. This is where the familiar expression “caveat emptor”, meaning “let the buyer beware”, becomes relevant.
That sounds cumbersome, but it is not the only way of organising property ownership. There is another approach, commonly associated with the Torrens system which many countries follow. Its central idea is much simpler: the government maintains an official register showing the ownership of each property and the important rights affecting it, and a buyer is normally entitled to rely on that register rather than reconstructing the entire history of the property.
The idea is often explained through three principles: the mirror, the curtain and the insurance principle.
The “mirror principle” means that the land register accurately reflects the current legal position. Think of the register as a mirror. When you look at it, you should be able to see who owns the property and what important registered rights or restrictions affect it. You should not have to search through a large pile of old documents to discover an important fact about the property that the official register failed to show.
The “curtain principle” means that the buyer normally does not have to look behind the register. If the register shows that A is the owner, the buyer can ordinarily rely on that entry instead of going backwards through A’s sale deed, A’s predecessor’s sale deed, the predecessor before that, and so on, trying to establish that every earlier transfer was valid. The old history is, in effect, behind the curtain.
The “insurance” or “assurance” principle adds another element. The system is backed by a State indemnity mechanism. If the registration system itself makes an error and an innocent person suffers a loss because the person relied on the official register, the system provides compensation subject to the applicable rules. In other words, the government does not merely say, “Here is the register; take your chances.” The system accepts responsibility for certain losses arising from errors in the operation of the title-registration system.
Therefore, every piece of land has an official government record. That record tells you who owns the property and what important rights or restrictions exist over it. You want to buy the property. You look at that record. You do not normally have to investigate every owner who came before the present owner. Once the transfer is properly entered in the register, the system gives that registered title a high degree of protection. And if an error in the State’s registration system causes a qualifying loss to an innocent person who relied on the register, there is an assurance mechanism to compensate the loss.
India has recognised the limitations of the present system and has been working towards a different model. The Digital India Land Records Modernization Programme, or DILRMP, has among its objectives moving towards “conclusive titling”, under which proof of ownership would be held in government records backed by a guarantee of authenticity. The programme seeks to integrate registration records with survey and spatial records and revenue records so that these different pieces of information can work together as a more reliable land-information system.
NITI Aayog has also published a Model Conclusive Land Titling Act. The proposed framework envisages a Register of Titles containing information such as the owner, the extent of ownership, transfers, charges and pending disputes. Under the model, after the prescribed process and the expiry of the objection period, entries in the Record of Titles would become conclusive proof of title. It also contains a provision for an indemnification system.
The Supreme Court gave this subject fresh attention and expressly noted the long-standing gap between registration and ownership and asked whether India should move towards a system in which registration serves as conclusive proof of ownership guaranteed by the State. The Court requested the Law Commission to examine the issue of integrating property registration with conclusive titling.
There is an even more futuristic possibility that is now being explored in India – tokenisation of land and other immovable assets. In simple terms, tokenisation would create a digital representation of the ownership or economic rights associated with a property, which could potentially be transferred or traded through a digital platform. Maharashtra has initiated work on a proposed DELTA law to create a legal framework for blockchain-based tokenisation of land and other immovable assets. The idea is to make the value locked in land more easily transferable and liquid, potentially allowing property-related interests to be dealt with through a market structure resembling the way financial assets are traded.