{
  "id": 13399224,
  "title": "Prevent neighbour from grabbing deal by doing this",
  "url": "https://urgent.news/2026/10/10/prevent-neighbour-from-grabbing-deal-by-doing-this",
  "topic": "business",
  "section": "Business",
  "published": "2026-10-10T10:54:56.000Z",
  "source": {
    "name": "The Economic Times",
    "slug": "the-economic-times",
    "url": "https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/wealth/legal/will/neighbour-claiming-your-property-your-sale-deeds-boundary-details-could-be-crucial/articleshow/134852492.cms"
  },
  "original_language": "en",
  "account": "A recent case in the Karnataka High Court has highlighted the dangers of an individual attempting to seize a neighbor's property through a rectification deed. The incident involved Mr. Thimmadasappa, who sold one of his two plots in Bangalore to Mr. K.M. Venkatamuniyappa. However, Venkatamuniyappa executed a rectification deed without Thimmadasappa's knowledge and altered the land's identity number to match his own. This created the illusion that Venkatamuniyappa owned both plots, while in reality, he only owned land no. 1, while land no. 2 remained unsold.\n\nUltimately, Thimmadasappa's son prevailed in the Supreme Court as the original seller's involvement was crucial, and Venkatamuniyappa failed to prove his claim that both plots were the same. The Supreme Court rejected Venkatamuniyappa's argument, stating that a rectification deed can only correct a genuine clerical error in an already-agreed transaction; it cannot be used to substitute a different property without the original seller's consent.\n\nThis ruling has shown the importance of verifying survey numbers recorded in sale deeds. Adnan Siddiqui, Partner, King Stubb and Kasiva, explained that the judgment demonstrates how a rectification deed executed in 1997, simply changing the survey number, caused Thimmadasappa to face a lengthy battle for his land. He emphasized that a survey number is an essential identity of the land, and any changes to it must be supported by solid evidence.\n\nSiddiqui also stressed that buyers and sellers should never assume that similar-sounding boundary descriptions signify the same plot, and rectification deeds should only correct genuine clerical or typographical errors in the original agreement. He warned that mutation records, although not directly proving title, can serve as practical proof of possession over time. In this case, Venkatamuniyappa's failure to update revenue records for a decade after claiming ownership was a critical downfall.\n\nThe judgment serves as a reminder to landowners to conduct thorough due diligence before acquiring property, including a title search through multiple transactions and a physical, surveyor-verified boundary check. By taking these precautions, individuals can avoid the complex and protracted legal disputes that this case illustrates.",
  "summary": null,
  "key_points": [],
  "editors_take": null,
  "illustration": null,
  "coverage": {
    "outlets": 1,
    "also_reported_by": []
  },
  "ai_generated": true,
  "disclaimer": "Summaries, key points and the editor’s take are written by software from other outlets’ reporting and may contain errors — always check the linked original."
}