Listen to this article in summarized format
There have been several instances in the high court and most recently in the Supreme Court of India where the court permitted the mutation of property records in the name of the legal heirs, but clearly stated that this does not mean ownership gets transferred to the legal heirs.
Income Tax Guide
Income Tax Union Budget FY 2026-27 LiveIncome Tax Slabs FY 2025-26Income Tax Calculator 2025
In simple terms, mutation records show who is responsible for paying property tax and other administrative work related to the property. Ownership of a property can be proved by sale deed, or Will, or Settlement deed or family arrangement deed or other legal documents.
Also read: Mutation and bank loan don’t prove land ownership: Why HC denied ancestral land claim
Do we need to mutate the name of the legal heirs or whoever got the property via Will after the owner dies?
Manu Goenka Wable, Associate Partner at SNG & Partners, Advocates and Solicitors said to ET Wealth Online that revenue records are not applicable to units in Maharashtra. In case of land, revenue records are maintained for fiscal purposes i.e. the holder’s name in the revenue records is liable to pay the land revenue for the property.
Moreover, revenue records are crucial for handling transaction. One of the recommended steps when dealing with a property transaction is to verify the name of the current holder in the revenue records together with past transactions history reflected in the records to help establish a clean chain of title.
Wable says: “So, although revenue records are not title documents and serve fiscal purpose, it is advised that the names of legal heirs are updated in revenue records after the death of the owner.”
If there is a property title dispute arising after the original owner’s death, will mutation happen?
According to Wable, in case there is a pending case in the court concerning title dispute and there is a stay order on creation of any third party right/interest on the property till further orders, any transfer/sale/transaction creating third party interest in the property would be in breach of that stay order.
Wable says: “If the revenue authority is made aware of such a stay order, it is unlikely that they will mutate such a transaction in their records and most likely cancel the mutation entry in case the transaction is already mutated.”
This implies that if the mutation involves updating the names of the legal heirs in the revenue records and there is a dispute among legal heirs, like if they are contesting the Will, and if the revenue authority is made aware of such a dispute, it’s probably not going to mutate the revenue records.
Also read: 12-year delay defeats brothers’ last-ditch bid to reclaim disputed land as HC blocks the move
There are multiple sons and daughters who are legal heirs. Can one heir evict the others without a court order or formal partition of the property?
Asha Kiran Sharma, Partner, King Stubb and Kasiva said to ET Wealth Online that when multiple heirs inherit a property, they typically become co-owners unless the property has been formally partitioned.
Sharma says: “One co-owner cannot unilaterally evict another co-owner without a court order or without a lawful partition of the property.”
Possession by one heir is generally considered possession on behalf of all co-owners unless proven otherwise. Sharma says: “Therefore, eviction or exclusive possession usually requires either a mutual settlement among heirs or a judicial order following a partition or possession suit.”
If one legal heir has been in possession of the property for more than 12 years before and after the owner’s death, does the property automatically belong to that heir?
According to Cyril Amarchand Mangaldas blog, adverse possession is a legal doctrine allowing a person to claim ownership of land by occupying it openly, continuously, exclusively, and without the owner’s permission (hostilely) for a statutory period, typically 12 years in India. If the true owner fails to take legal action (eviction) within this time, they lose their right to the property.
Sharma says that does not happen automatically. Long possession alone does not extinguish the rights of other legal heirs.
Sharma says that to claim of ownership through adverse possession, the person must prove that their possession was exclusive, continuous, open, and hostile to the rights of the other co-owners.”
According to Sharma, in the case of co-legal heirs, courts are generally cautious in accepting adverse possession claims because possession by one heir is often presumed to be on behalf of all heirs. Therefore, other legal heirs may still claim their share unless the stringent legal requirements of adverse possession are clearly established.
aniltikotekar4sme.com 