Rohas Legal AI: Property

View saved version →

---
name: development-agreement-reviewer
description: Reviews a development agreement or joint development agreement for land, from the landowner's or the developer's side — the area or revenue-sharing mechanics, construction timeline and delay consequences, the power of attorney granted to the developer, and the security protecting the landowner's interest during construction. Use this whenever a user needs a land development or JDA arrangement reviewed — including phrasings like "review this joint development agreement from the landowner's side", "check the area-sharing terms in this development agreement", "what security do we have if the developer defaults", or "review the power of attorney clause in this JDA". Fires for any development agreement, joint development agreement, or similar land development arrangement, from either side.
---

# Development Agreement Reviewer

## What this does

Reviews a development agreement or joint development agreement — the arrangement under which a landowner contributes land and a developer contributes construction in exchange for a share of built-up area or revenue — from one identified side. It works through the sharing mechanics, the construction timeline and what happens on delay, the power of attorney granted to the developer, and what actually secures the landowner's interest during a construction period where the landowner has typically already given up something of value before receiving anything back.

## Before you start

**Which side is being reviewed for — landowner or developer.** These arrangements are structurally asymmetric: the landowner typically parts with possession, sometimes title interest, and grants a power of attorney well before receiving their share, while the developer commits construction obligations recoverable mainly through the project's own success. Ask, and do not begin until confirmed.

**Governing law and the property's location.** Land law, registration requirements, and power of attorney formalities are intensely jurisdiction- and often state-specific. Extract from the documents or ask; treat every formality question as a verification point rather than an assumption.

**The complete document set** — the development agreement itself, any power of attorney, any supplementary allocation or sharing agreement, and permission or approval documents referenced. These commonly cross-reference each other, and reviewing the development agreement without the POA it grants is reviewing half the arrangement.

Not blocking, ask once and proceed on what is confirmed: **posture** — negotiation or executed — which gates whether the output produces redlines or a plain statement of consequence.

## Method

**1. Classify the arrangement** — area-sharing, revenue-sharing, or a hybrid — and the specific mechanics used, in one line before analysing anything.

**2. Read the whole document set once before commenting on any single clause.** A development agreement routinely cross-references a power of attorney, a permissions-responsibility clause, and sometimes a separate allocation agreement; reading one without the others misstates the actual arrangement.

**3. Work through the area or revenue-sharing mechanics precisely.** The ratio, how it is calculated, and — critically — the exact basis it is calculated on: saleable area, built-up area, and carpet area are different measures, and a ratio that looks generous on one basis can be ungenerous on another. Do not assume which basis is meant; work from what the document actually defines.

**4. Work through the construction timeline and delay consequences.** What happens if the developer delays — whether there is a penalty or compensation mechanism — and what recourse the landowner has if the developer abandons the project partway through.

**5. Work through possession and handover mechanics.** When the landowner actually receives their share, in what condition, and whether there is any compensation for temporary accommodation if the landowner had to vacate the property during construction.

**6. Check the power of attorney granted to the developer specifically.** Its scope — general or limited to what the project actually requires — whether it is revocable, and critically what happens to it if the agreement is terminated. An overly broad or effectively irrevocable POA is one of the most significant landowner-adverse terms this document type produces, and it deserves scrutiny independent of the main agreement's own termination clause.

**7. Check responsibility for statutory permissions and approvals** — building plan sanction, environmental clearance, project registration — and the consequence if they are not obtained.

**8. Check what actually secures the landowner's interest during construction.** The landowner has often given up possession or a title interest before receiving their share; check whether the agreement provides real security — a registered charge, a specific mortgage — or only personal covenants that offer little protection if the developer becomes insolvent or simply defaults.

**9. Check termination and its consequences carefully** — what happens to construction already completed, to the power of attorney, to any registration already effected, and to the landowner's original interest in the land if the developer defaults partway through the project.

**10. Grade every issue** using the practice pack's standard three tiers, and produce redlines and fallback only where the posture is negotiation; state consequence only for an executed agreement.

**11. Flag governing-law-dependent points** — land law formalities, registration requirements, power of attorney revocability rules, statutory registration applicability — as verification points rather than asserted facts.

## Output

**1. Parameters.** Side reviewed for, governing law and property location, documents reviewed, posture, date.

**2. Executive summary.** The handful of things that matter most, and the biggest concern for the identified side.

**3. Sharing mechanics.** The ratio, its basis, and how the landowner's share is actually delivered.

**4. Timeline and delay consequences.**

**5. Possession and handover mechanics.**

**6. Power of attorney analysis.** Scope, revocability, and its status on termination.

**7. Permissions and approvals responsibility.**

**8. Security for the landowner's interest.** What actually protects the landowner during construction, stated plainly.

**9. Termination consequences.**

**10. Issues list.** A table: Ref | Clause | Issue | Effect on the reviewed side | Grade | Proposed change | Fallback. Replace the last two columns with a single Consequence column where the posture is executed.

**11. Points requiring verification.** Land law formalities, registration requirements, POA revocability, and statutory permission requirements under the governing law.

## Do not

Do not assume a specific area-sharing ratio or a standard definition of "saleable area." Work from what the document actually defines.

Do not assume the power of attorney is adequately protective, or adequately limited, without checking its actual scope and revocability.

Do not assert that statutory registration or permission requirements are satisfied without confirming.

Do not produce negotiating redlines for an executed agreement not under negotiation. State the consequence instead.

Do not assume land law formalities — registration, POA revocability, statutory approval requirements — are satisfied. Flag them as verification points.

Referenced files: 1

View saved version →

---
name: encumbrance-analyst
description: Reads an encumbrance certificate for a property, extracting every entry chronologically, flagging charges that appear still subsisting, checking the chain of title implied by the transaction entries for gaps or breaks, and stating plainly what the certificate cannot show — a "nil encumbrance" period is not proof of clean title. Use this whenever a user has an encumbrance certificate to review — including phrasings like "check this encumbrance certificate for charges", "does this EC show a clean title", "is this mortgage still subsisting on the property", or "read this EC and flag anything concerning". India-specific. Fires for any encumbrance certificate review, as one input to a fuller title investigation — pair with title-diligence-analyst for the complete picture.
---

# Encumbrance Analyst

## What this does

Reads an encumbrance certificate — the Indian land record document showing registered transactions and charges against a property over a stated period — and extracts every entry, flags any charge that appears still subsisting, checks the chain of title the transaction entries imply for internal consistency, and states plainly what the certificate cannot show. An encumbrance certificate is only as complete as the underlying registration record; it does not catch off-register risk, and treating a clean-looking certificate as proof of clean title is the single most common way this document gets over-relied on.

## Before you start

**The encumbrance certificate itself.** Blocking — there is nothing to analyse without the actual document or its text.

**The period the certificate needs to cover for this transaction, and whether the supplied certificate actually covers it.** Ask; do not assume a standard search period is sufficient. What period is actually needed depends on the applicable due diligence standard for this transaction, which should be confirmed rather than assumed.

Not blocking, ask once and proceed on what is available: **whether other title documents — sale deeds, mutation records — are available to cross-check against the certificate's entries.** Cross-checking strengthens the analysis but is not required to extract and flag what the certificate itself shows.

## Method

**1. Read the whole certificate once, extracting every entry chronologically** — transaction type, parties, date, and any charge or encumbrance noted.

**2. Check the period covered against what is actually needed for this transaction.** Flag it if the certificate does not cover a sufficient period; do not assert what period is "sufficient" as a universal rule — note that it depends on the applicable due diligence standard, and that standard should be confirmed, not assumed.

**3. Identify every charge or encumbrance that appears still subsisting** — an unreleased mortgage, a lien, a court attachment, a pending notice — and flag each as needing verification of its current status. Do not assume a charge has been released simply because no later release entry appears, and do not assume it has not been released simply because none is shown — flag it either way; certificates can be incomplete or delayed in reflecting a release.

**4. Treat "nil" or gap periods carefully.** A nil-encumbrance entry for a period does not guarantee no risk existed, since the certificate is only as complete as the underlying registration record. State this limitation plainly: unregistered agreements, litigation not yet reflected in the record, and unregistered leases are examples of risk an encumbrance certificate does not catch at all.

**5. Cross-check the chain of title implied by the certificate's transaction entries for internal consistency.** Does each transfer flow from the party who held the property according to the prior entry, or is there a break or an unexplained gap in the sequence.

**6. Flag any entry that is ambiguous, illegible in the original, or uses local terminology or abbreviations needing confirmation of meaning.** Do not guess at what an ambiguous entry means.

**7. Note where an entry points to a risk needing further diligence outside the certificate itself** — a mortgage entry, for instance, means checking with the lender or the sub-registrar for a no-dues certificate or release deed, not relying on the certificate's own silence about what happened afterward.

**8. State the overall risk assessment clearly** — clean chain, gaps present, active encumbrance found, or needs further verification — rather than leaving the reader to infer a conclusion from the entry list alone.

## Output

**1. Header.** Property, the period the certificate covers, issuing authority, date of analysis.

**2. Chronological entries.** As they appear, in a table.

**3. Subsisting charges and encumbrances.** Flagged for current-status verification.

**4. Chain-of-title consistency check.** Any break or gap noted specifically.

**5. Coverage limitations.** What the certificate does not and cannot show, stated plainly as its own section, not folded into a caveat at the end.

**6. Ambiguous entries.** Flagged, not guessed at.

**7. Overall risk assessment.**

**8. Points requiring verification.** Current status of any subsisting charge, sufficiency of the period covered, and the meaning of any ambiguous entry.

## Do not

Do not treat a nil-encumbrance period as proof of clean title. State the certificate's inherent limitations plainly.

Do not assume a charge has been released, or that it has not been released, without flagging its current status for verification either way.

Do not guess at the meaning of an ambiguous or illegible entry.

Do not assert what period of search is "sufficient" as a universal rule. Flag it as depending on the applicable due diligence standard.

Do not treat the certificate as a complete title investigation on its own. It is one input; note that a fuller review, such as title-diligence-analyst, is the complementary step for the complete picture.

Referenced files: 1

View saved version →

---
name: lease-reviewer
description: Reviews a lease or leave-and-licence agreement from the landlord's or tenant's side — term and renewal, rent and escalation, maintenance and repair responsibility, security deposit, and exit mechanics — checking first whether the document's own label matches its legal substance, and flagging rent-control or tenant-protection statutes that can override the written terms regardless of what the lease says. Use this whenever a user needs a lease or licence reviewed — including phrasings like "review this lease from the tenant's side", "check the renewal terms in this commercial lease", "does this leave-and-licence agreement actually create a lease", or "what are our exit obligations under this lease". Fires for any lease, tenancy, or leave-and-licence agreement, from either side.
---

# Lease Reviewer

## What this does

Reviews a lease or leave-and-licence agreement from one identified side: term and renewal, rent and its escalation, maintenance and repair allocation, the security deposit, and exit mechanics. It checks first whether the document actually creates what it claims to — a licence that in substance grants exclusive possession for a fixed term can be recharacterised as a lease under some jurisdictions' law, with materially different consequences for possession rights — and it treats rent-control or tenant-protection legislation as a real possibility that can override the written terms, not something the document's own wording can be assumed to settle.

## Before you start

**Which side is being reviewed for — landlord or tenant (or licensor or licensee).** Ask, and do not begin substantive review until confirmed.

**Governing law and the property's location.** Landlord-tenant law is intensely jurisdiction-specific, and rent-control or tenant-protection legislation in many jurisdictions significantly restricts what a lease can actually provide regardless of its written terms. Extract from the document or ask; treat every point resting on such legislation as a verification point rather than an assumption that the written terms will simply be given effect.

**The complete document set** — the lease itself and any schedule, such as a fit-out or service-charge schedule, that qualifies it.

Not blocking, ask once and proceed on what is confirmed: **posture** — negotiation or executed — which gates whether the output produces redlines or a plain statement of consequence.

## Method

**1. Classify the document — lease or licence — and check whether its label matches its actual substance.** A document labelled a licence that in substance grants exclusive possession for a defined term risks being recharacterised as a lease under the law of some jurisdictions, with real consequences for eviction and possession rights. Flag this as a verification point where the substance looks mismatched to the label; do not assert the recharacterisation definitively without legal research.

**2. Read the whole document once before commenting on any single clause.**

**3. Work through term and renewal.** The lease period, whether a renewal is a genuine option the tenant can exercise or requires fresh negotiation with the landlord, and the notice periods required for renewal or non-renewal.

**4. Work through rent and escalation.** Base rent, the escalation mechanism — a fixed percentage or index-linked — payment terms, and any revenue-share or turnover-rent component where the tenancy is commercial.

**5. Work through maintenance and repair responsibility.** The allocation between landlord and tenant, the distinction between structural and non-structural repairs, and service-charge mechanics where they apply.

**6. Work through the security deposit.** The amount, whether it carries interest, the conditions under which deductions can be made, and the refund timeline and mechanics on exit.

**7. Work through exit mechanics.** Termination rights — for breach, and for convenience if any exists — notice periods, make-good or reinstatement obligations, and the consequences of holding over past the term.

**8. Check for statutory overrides.** Rent-control legislation, mandatory notice periods, or tenant-protection statutes can override the written terms regardless of what the lease itself says. Flag this as a verification point specific to the governing law and the property's location; do not assume the written terms control without that being checked.

**9. Grade every issue** using the practice pack's standard three tiers, from the identified side's perspective, and produce redlines and fallback only where the posture is negotiation.

## Output

**1. Parameters.** Side reviewed for, governing law and property location, documents reviewed, posture, date.

**2. Executive summary.**

**3. Lease-versus-licence classification.** Stated plainly, with any mismatch between label and substance flagged for verification.

**4. Term and renewal.**

**5. Rent and escalation.**

**6. Maintenance and repair allocation.**

**7. Security deposit.**

**8. Exit mechanics.**

**9. Issues list.** A table: Ref | Clause | Issue | Effect on the reviewed side | Grade | Proposed change | Fallback. Replace the last two columns with a single Consequence column where the posture is executed.

**10. Points requiring verification.** Statutory overrides — rent control, tenant protection, mandatory notice periods — and the lease-versus-licence characterisation question, under the governing law.

## Do not

Do not assume a document's label — lease or licence — matches its legal substance. Flag a mismatch risk where one appears.

Do not assume the written terms will be given full effect. Rent-control and tenant-protection statutes can override them; flag this as a verification point.

Do not produce negotiating redlines for an executed lease not under negotiation. State the consequence instead.

Do not assume standard notice periods or statutory protections apply. These are jurisdiction- and property-type-specific.

Referenced files: 1

View saved version →

---
name: rera-compliance-checker
description: Checks RERA registration and disclosure obligations for a real estate project — registration threshold applicability, promoter disclosure duties, agreement-for-sale compliance, delay-consequence terms against the statutory framework, and escrow fund-utilization requirements — always confirming which state's RERA authority and rules apply first, since implementation is state-wise, not uniform. Use this whenever a user needs a project's RERA position checked — including phrasings like "does this project need RERA registration", "check our disclosure obligations under RERA", "does this agreement for sale comply with the prescribed form", or "are we meeting the escrow requirements for this project". India-specific. Fires for any real estate project or agreement for sale where RERA applicability is in question.
---

# RERA Compliance Checker

## What this does

Checks a real estate project's position under India's Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act: whether registration is required, what disclosures a promoter must make, whether the agreement for sale meets prescribed form and content requirements, how the project's delay-consequence terms compare to the statutory framework, and whether fund-utilization and escrow obligations are being met. RERA is implemented state by state, with state-specific authorities and rules — this skill never assumes a uniform national standard and flags every state-specific figure as something to verify.

## Before you start

**The project facts.** Type, size, stage, and — critically — the state the project is in. Blocking; RERA rules, thresholds, and prescribed forms vary by state, and the analysis cannot proceed without knowing which state's authority governs.

Not blocking, ask once and proceed on what is confirmed: **whether registration has already been obtained.** This shapes whether the analysis checks ongoing compliance or the threshold question of whether registration is required at all.

## Method

**1. Confirm which state's RERA authority and rules apply before analysing anything.** Do not assume uniform national rules; flag state-specific variation as a live consideration throughout, not a one-time caveat.

**2. Determine whether the project meets the threshold requiring registration** — commonly based on area or number of units — without asserting a specific numeric threshold from memory. Flag the current threshold as needing verification against the applicable state's rules.

**3. Check registration status.** Has it been obtained, and if not, what obligations and marketing restrictions apply in the interim.

**4. Identify the promoter's disclosure obligations** — project details, timeline, approvals, and structural details that must be disclosed to allottees — covering both pre-registration marketing restrictions and ongoing disclosure duties during the project.

**5. Check the agreement for sale against any state-prescribed model form or content requirement, where one exists.** Flag that the current prescribed form needs verification rather than asserting the agreement's format is compliant.

**6. Compare the agreement's delay-consequence provisions against RERA's own statutory delay-compensation framework.** Flag whether the agreement's terms are at least as protective as the statutory minimum, without asserting the statutory minimum's current specifics from memory — that needs verification against the applicable state rules.

**7. Check fund-utilization and escrow compliance.** RERA typically mandates that a percentage of project receipts be kept in a designated account for construction costs; flag the applicable percentage and mechanics as needing current verification rather than stated as known.

**8. Note any project-specific extension or amendment to the registration status**, if supplied.

## Output

**1. Header.** Project, state, promoter, date.

**2. Registration status and threshold applicability.**

**3. Disclosure obligations.** A checklist.

**4. Agreement-for-sale compliance.** Checked against the prescribed form and content requirement if one applies, flagged for verification.

**5. Delay-consequence comparison.** Agreement terms against the statutory framework, flagged for verification of current specifics.

**6. Escrow and fund-utilization compliance.** Flagged for verification of the current applicable percentage and mechanics.

**7. Points requiring verification.** Current state-specific registration thresholds, prescribed agreement forms, delay-compensation formulas, and escrow percentages.

## Do not

Do not assume uniform national RERA rules apply. Flag state-specific variation throughout, not once at the start.

Do not assert a specific registration threshold, escrow percentage, or delay-compensation formula from memory.

Do not assume a project is compliant without the actual registration and disclosure documents being checked.

Do not draft the disclosure documents themselves here. This is a compliance check, not a drafting skill.

Referenced files: 1

View saved version →

---
name: sale-deed-drafter
description: Drafts a sale deed or conveyance — the instrument that actually transfers ownership of real property, distinct from an agreement to sell — with a precise property description, accurate consideration and receipt recitals, title covenants only as actually instructed, and existing encumbrances addressed explicitly rather than glossed over. Use this whenever a user needs a conveyance drafted — including phrasings like "draft a sale deed for this property transfer", "prepare the conveyance following our agreement to sell", "draft a deed that releases the existing mortgage on transfer", or "convert this agreement to sell into a sale deed". Fires for any sale deed or conveyance instrument transferring real property, in any jurisdiction — though conveyancing formalities are intensely jurisdiction-specific and are treated as verification points throughout, not assumptions.
---

# Sale Deed Drafter

## What this does

Drafts a sale deed or conveyance: the instrument that actually transfers ownership of real property, as distinct from an agreement to sell, which is only a contract to transfer in future. This is exactly the kind of document where getting a formality wrong can mean the transfer does not actually take effect, so it treats jurisdiction-specific formal requirements — the precise language of conveyance, registration, stamping — as verification points throughout rather than assuming generic language satisfies them.

## Before you start

**The property details, the parties, and the sale consideration.** Blocking.

**Governing law and jurisdiction.** Conveyancing formalities — what makes a valid transfer, registration requirements, mandatory recitals — are intensely jurisdiction-specific. Ask, unless stated. This determines what must be flagged for verification rather than drafted with confidence.

**Whether this deed follows a completed agreement to sell.** If it does, its terms need to be consistent with that agreement, and any discrepancy between the two needs to be flagged, not silently resolved in the deed's favour.

Not blocking, ask once and proceed on what is confirmed: **whether the property is encumbered or mortgaged**, and if so, whether the deed needs to address a release or the buyer's assumption of the existing charge.

## Method

**1. Confirm the property is described precisely and completely** — boundaries or survey details, and any schedule of property, exactly as needed for the document to be valid and registrable. Do not draft a vague property description; this document's validity depends on precise identification of what is being conveyed.

**2. Confirm the parties' exact legal names and capacity** — individual, company, or a party acting through a power of attorney. Where a power of attorney is involved, check that its scope actually covers this specific transaction rather than assuming it does.

**3. State the sale consideration and payment recitals precisely.** A sale deed typically recites that consideration has been received; this needs to be accurate as of execution, not aspirational.

**4. Draft the actual conveyance or transfer clause using the formal language the governing law requires**, and flag explicitly that the specific required formal language is jurisdiction-specific — do not assume generic transfer language satisfies it. This is a verification point, not something to draft past.

**5. Draft title covenants only as actually true or instructed** — marketable title, no encumbrances except as disclosed, the right to convey — never as boilerplate assumed to apply regardless of the actual facts.

**6. Address any existing encumbrance explicitly.** If the property carries a mortgage or charge, the deed needs to address its release or the buyer's assumption of it precisely as instructed — this cannot be glossed over or left implicit.

**7. Draft the possession delivery clause** — when and how possession passes.

**8. Flag registration, stamp duty, and any other formality as a jurisdiction-specific verification point.** Do not assert that the deed satisfies current stamp duty or registration requirements; point to stamp-duty-analyst for the substantive stamp duty determination rather than asserting compliance here.

**9. Check consistency with any prior agreement to sell**, where one exists, and flag any discrepancy between the deed's terms and that agreement's terms rather than resolving it silently.

## Output

**1. Header.** Parties, property, date, and whether this deed follows a prior agreement to sell.

**2. The deed.** Property description, parties, consideration and receipt recital, the conveyance clause, title covenants, treatment of any existing encumbrance, possession clause, execution block.

**3. Drafting notes.** Judgment calls made, especially around formal language choices.

**4. Points requiring verification.** Jurisdiction-specific formal requirements for a valid conveyance, stamp duty and registration (pointing to stamp-duty-analyst), and any discrepancy with a prior agreement to sell.

## Do not

Do not draft a vague or incomplete property description.

Do not assume generic transfer language satisfies the governing law's formal requirements. Flag it as a verification point.

Do not draft a title covenant representing something not actually instructed as true.

Do not gloss over an existing encumbrance. Address it precisely.

Do not assert stamp duty or registration compliance. Flag it and point to stamp-duty-analyst.

Referenced files: 1

View saved version →

---
name: stamp-duty-analyst
description: Calculates stamp duty and registration cost for a property transaction using only the rates the user actually supplies, showing the arithmetic and the valuation base used, and flagging every current rate, circle-rate value, or exemption eligibility as needing verification rather than asserted from memory. Use this whenever a user needs stamp duty or registration cost worked out — including phrasings like "calculate stamp duty on this sale deed", "what's the registration fee on this property transfer", "does this qualify for a stamp duty concession", or "work out the total stamp duty and registration cost using these rates". India-specific — stamp duty is a state subject with rates that vary by state and change over time. A quantification tool, not a legal validity assessment; pair with sale-deed-drafter for the instrument itself.
---

# Stamp Duty Analyst

## What this does

Calculates the stamp duty and registration cost for a property transaction, using only the rates the user actually supplies or that are sourced this session. It shows the arithmetic in full, states which valuation base was used and why, and flags every rate, circle-rate value, and exemption eligibility that has not been confirmed as something requiring verification — never asserting a current figure from memory, since stamp duty is set state by state in India and changes periodically.

## Before you start

**The transaction details.** Property value or consideration, the instrument type (sale, gift, lease, mortgage — stamp duty treatment differs by instrument type), and the state where the property is located, since stamp duty is a state subject. Blocking.

**The applicable stamp duty rate.** Must be supplied by the user or sourced this session. Do not assert a current rate from memory — rates vary by state, change over time, and in some states carry category-based concessions that affect the applicable figure.

Not blocking, ask once and proceed on what is confirmed: **whether any exemption or concession might apply** — a category-based rebate, a first-time buyer concession. Ask, and flag eligibility as needing verification rather than assumed.

## Method

**1. Classify the instrument type precisely** — sale deed, gift deed, lease deed, mortgage, power of attorney — since stamp duty treatment and the applicable rate differ by instrument type.

**2. Confirm the property's location precisely**, including any municipal classification that affects the rate, since this determines which rate schedule applies.

**3. Determine the valuation base.** Stamp duty is typically calculated on the higher of the actual consideration or the government-notified guidance or circle-rate value. Flag that the current circle-rate value needs to be checked or supplied; do not assume actual consideration is always the correct base.

**4. Calculate stamp duty using only the rate actually supplied**, applied to the correct valuation base, showing the arithmetic precisely so it can be checked.

**5. Calculate the registration fee separately, if a distinct rate applies.** Registration fees are often calculated differently from stamp duty itself — a different percentage, sometimes capped — and should use only supplied rates, not an assumed relationship to the stamp duty figure.

**6. Flag any potential exemption or concession** — a category-based rebate, a specific buyer concession — as needing verification of current eligibility criteria and rate. Do not assume eligibility.

**7. Note any additional applicable charge — a surcharge, a cess — only if a rate for it has actually been supplied.**

**8. Show the total computation clearly**, with every rate and figure traced to its source: supplied by the user, sourced this session, or flagged as needing verification.

## Output

**1. Header.** Property, transaction type, state, date.

**2. Valuation base.** Consideration versus circle-rate value, which is being used and why, flagged if the circle-rate figure needs confirmation.

**3. Stamp duty calculation.** Shown with the rate used and its source.

**4. Registration fee calculation.** Shown similarly, with its own source noted.

**5. Exemptions and concessions.** Flagged for verification, not assumed to apply.

**6. Total.** Summed clearly, every component traceable.

**7. Points requiring verification.** Any current applicable rate not supplied, the circle-rate value, and exemption eligibility.

## Do not

Do not assert a current stamp duty or registration fee rate from memory. Use only supplied or sourced rates.

Do not assume actual consideration is the valuation base without checking it against the circle or guidance rate.

Do not assume an exemption or concession applies without its eligibility being verified.

Do not assess the legal validity of the transaction. This skill quantifies stamp duty and registration cost only.

Referenced files: 1

View saved version →

---
name: title-diligence-analyst
description: Traces a property's chain of title from supplied documents, flags every break, gap, or unsupported transfer, checks succession transfers with extra scrutiny, and states comprehensively what remains unverified — documents not supplied, searches not conducted, defects that cannot be resolved from what was given. Use this whenever a user needs a title investigation worked through — including phrasings like "trace the chain of title on these documents", "are there any gaps in this title chain", "check this inheritance transfer for title risk", or "what haven't we verified yet in this property's title". India-specific. Works across the whole document set supplied — pair with encumbrance-analyst for a dedicated encumbrance-certificate review, which is a necessary complementary step this skill does not replace.
---

# Title Diligence Analyst

## What this does

Traces a property's chain of title from whatever documents are actually supplied — sale deeds, prior title documents, mutation records, an encumbrance certificate if included — flags every break or unsupported transfer in the chain, gives succession or inheritance transfers the closer scrutiny they typically need, and states comprehensively what remains unverified. That last section is as important as the findings themselves: this analysis is only ever as complete as the documents it was given, and the gap between what was supplied and what a complete title investigation would require has to be stated plainly, not implied.

## Before you start

**The title documents actually supplied.** Blocking — the analysis's completeness depends entirely on what is given, and a gap in supply is a gap in the analysis, never something to fill with an assumption about what a missing document probably said.

**How far back the chain needs to be traced** — a specific number of years, or to the root of title. Ask; this varies by transaction type, lender requirement, and local practice, and should not be assumed.

Not blocking, ask once and proceed on what is confirmed: **whether a dedicated encumbrance certificate review has already been done.** If not, note that it is a necessary complementary step this analysis does not itself perform — point to encumbrance-analyst for that.

## Method

**1. List every document supplied, in chronological order**, and identify any gap in the sequence — a transfer with no supporting document, or an owner named in one document who does not appear as the transferor in the next.

**2. Trace the chain of title precisely from the earliest supplied document to the current holder**, flagging every break, inconsistency, or transfer that is not actually supported by a document in the set.

**3. Check each document in the chain for facial validity** — proper execution, registration where the document type requires it, stamping — without asserting current registration or stamping requirements from memory. Flag these as needing verification.

**4. Check for any recorded encumbrance, charge, or litigation affecting the property across the document set**, cross-referencing an encumbrance certificate if one is supplied. If no certificate is part of the document set, flag plainly that this has not been reviewed and remains a gap.

**5. Give succession and inheritance transfers in the chain closer scrutiny.** These often lack the same documentary rigor as sale transactions — missing heirs, or a will that was never probated where probate is required, are common sources of title defect that a routine read-through can miss. Flag any succession transfer for verification rather than treating it as equivalent to a straightforward sale.

**6. Note any government acquisition notification or land-use restriction affecting the property, but only where such a document is actually part of the supplied set.** Do not assert the absence of such an issue — this analysis is confined to what was supplied, and absence of evidence in a limited document set is not evidence of absence.

**7. Check mutation record consistency against the sale deed chain, if mutation records are supplied.** A divergence between the two is itself a finding, not something to reconcile silently in favour of one record over the other.

**8. State comprehensively and explicitly everything that remains unverified** — documents not supplied, searches not conducted (an encumbrance certificate, court records, revenue records), and any defect identified that could not be resolved from the documents actually given. Treat this section with the same care as the findings themselves.

**9. Grade the overall title position honestly** — clean, minor defects, material defects, or significant unverified risk — as a summary the reader can act on.

## Output

**1. Header.** Property, documents supplied (listed), the period the chain covers, date.

**2. Chain of title.** Chronological, every document and transfer set out.

**3. Defects and breaks found.** Specific, tied to specific documents in the chain.

**4. Succession or inheritance transfers.** Flagged for closer scrutiny where present.

**5. Encumbrances or litigation noted** from the supplied documents.

**6. Mutation record consistency**, where applicable.

**7. What remains unverified.** A comprehensive list: documents not supplied, searches not conducted, and defects not resolvable from what was given.

**8. Overall assessment.** Clean, minor defects, material defects, or significant unverified risk.

## Do not

Do not fill a gap in the document chain with an assumption about what probably happened.

Do not assert current registration or stamping requirements from memory. Flag them as verification points.

Do not assert the absence of an encumbrance, government acquisition, or litigation risk beyond what the supplied documents actually show.

Do not understate what remains unverified. This is the section that protects the user from over-relying on a necessarily incomplete analysis.

Do not perform a dedicated encumbrance certificate review here if one is supplied. Reference it, or note that a dedicated review — encumbrance-analyst — is the complementary step where none has been done.

Referenced files: 1