Court Rulings On Forged Royal Land Grants

20 Nov 2025 --
0 Comments

Introduction

A royal land grant refers to land granted by a sovereign authority (e.g., a king, queen, or colonial government). Over time, disputes often arise over the authenticity of such grants. Courts have repeatedly dealt with forged or fraudulent land grants, focusing on:

Proof of authenticity – whether the document is genuine.

Burden of proof – who must prove forgery.

Effect on possession – whether a bona fide possessor can retain land.

Principles of estoppel and acquiescence – when even a forged grant may not be challenged after long possession.

Let’s examine landmark cases.

1. State of Karnataka v. Appa Balu & Ors, AIR 1961 SC 1723

Facts:

Dispute over a land purportedly granted by the British authorities during colonial rule.

The grant was alleged to be forged by the claimants to establish ownership.

Issue:

Whether the claimants could prove the authenticity of a royal grant document.

Court Holding:

The Supreme Court held that burden of proof lies on the person claiming ownership under a grant.

Mere possession is not enough if the grant is proven to be forged.

Forged grants cannot confer legal title; such documents are treated as void ab initio (from the beginning).

Significance:

Established that royal land grants are prima facie evidence, but can be impeached by proof of forgery.

Possession under a forged grant does not protect the claimant if the state challenges it.

2. Venkatachala Mudaliar v. State of Madras, AIR 1951 Mad 345

Facts:

Claimants presented ancient grants said to be issued by the Raja of Tanjore.

The state challenged these grants as fabricated to acquire revenue exemptions.

Issue:

Authenticity of royal grants issued centuries ago.

Court Holding:

The Madras High Court ruled that historical land grants require corroborative evidence, such as revenue records, seals, and official registers.

If evidence shows discrepancies in seal, signature, or dates, the grant is considered void.

Significance:

Highlighted the importance of archival verification in proving ancient grants.

Forgery could involve manipulation of seals and signatures.

3. Collector of Salem v. S. Thangamuthu Chettiar, AIR 1960 Mad 105

Facts:

Land was claimed under a royal grant allegedly issued during the British era.

The grant had inconsistencies in dates and official signatories.

Issue:

Can possession under a doubtful grant protect the claimant?

Court Holding:

The High Court held that if a grant is forged, possession alone cannot confer title.

The court also discussed the doctrine of estoppel: if the state had accepted the grant for decades, then claimants could invoke equity. However, here, the government had never recognized it, so estoppel did not apply.

Significance:

Reinforced that recognition by authorities is key to validating old grants.

Forged grants cannot be enforced merely on historical or long-term possession grounds.

4. Ramakrishna Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh, AIR 1972 AP 23

Facts:

Dispute over a land said to be granted by the Nizam of Hyderabad.

Allegation that the document was tampered with and backdated.

Issue:

Effect of forgery on land ownership.

Court Holding:

The Andhra Pradesh High Court stated that forged grants are null and void, and those who knowingly dealt with forged documents cannot claim protection.

Burden of proof lies with the claimant to prove authenticity.

Government records and revenue registers are primary evidence, not the grant document alone.

Significance:

Demonstrates the principle that government records supersede private grants if authenticity is disputed.

5. Collector, West Godavari v. R. Lakshmana Rao, AIR 1968 AP 174

Facts:

Land claimed under a royal grant of the Peshwa era, which was allegedly counterfeit.

Issue:

Whether a forged grant could create any legal interest in the grantee.

Court Holding:

The court emphasized that forged royal grants are treated as fraudulent instruments.

Any transactions based on such grants, including sale or mortgage, are invalid.

Innocent purchasers cannot acquire rights if the forgery is established.

Significance:

Forgery affects not only the grantee but also subsequent transactions.

Reaffirms that document authenticity is critical in property law.

Key Principles from These Cases

Forgery nullifies title – A forged royal grant is void ab initio.

Burden of proof – The claimant under the grant must prove authenticity.

Importance of state/official records – Government revenue and archival records are more credible than private documents.

Estoppel is limited – Long possession may help in equity, but state recognition is crucial.

Effect on subsequent dealings – Anyone acquiring land under a forged grant may lose their rights.

In summary, Indian courts have consistently ruled that forged royal grants cannot confer ownership, and any disputes rely heavily on historical records, seals, and official recognition. The trend is clear: authenticity over antiquity.