Amarjit Kaur Kheela v Sandeep Kaur Khela [2026] UKFTT 772 (PC)

[2026] UKFTT 00772 (PC)
Between
AMARJIT KAUR KHEELAApplicantSANDEEP KAUR KHELARespondent
PROPERTY CHAMBER, LAND REGISTRATION
Property Address: 15a Horseley Heath,Tipton, DY4 7QUTitle No: WM482675Hearing on 28 th and 29 th April 2026Before: Judge MuirSitting at Birmingham Civil and Family Justice CentreDECISIONDate 2026-05-07

Introduction

[1]This case concerns the title of 15a Horseley Heath, Tipton, DY4 7QU (“the Property”) which is registered under Title No. WM482675. On 14th August 2024, the Applicant applied to HM Land Registry to alter the register pursuant to Paragraph 5 of Schedule 4 to the Land Registration Act 2002 (“the Act”) to restore her name as registered proprietor. The grounds for the application are that the Applicant says that her signature on the transfer of the Property to her brother, Gurnam Singh Kheela, dated 9th July 2003 (“the 2003 Transfer”) was a forgery. Since then, Gurnam Singh Kheela has transferred the Property to his ex-wife, the Respondent, by means of a transfer dated 2nd December 2020. The Applicant claims there is therefore a mistake on the register which should be rectified.[2]The Respondent objected to the application on the grounds that the 2003 Transfer was lawful. Further she claims that the Applicant did not challenge Gurnam Singh Kheela’s title or her own title until November 2022, following the death of the Applicant and Gurnam Singh Kheela’s father.[3]The matter was transferred to this Tribunal on 25th February 2025.[4]The Applicant now lives in the USA and attended the hearing by video link. She was represented at the hearing by her brother, Inderjit Kheela. The Respondent represented herself. I am grateful to both representatives for their helpful submissions and the manner in which they presented their respective cases. In addition to hearing evidence from the parties, I heard evidence from Mr. Gurnam Singh Kheela, Mr. Inderjit Kheela and Ms Christina Strang, an expert graphologist. In this decision, I shall refer to members of the Kheela family by their first names in order to distinguish them. No disrespect is intended.

The Law

[5]Paragraph 1 of Schedule 4 to the Act states:
“In this Schedule, references to rectification, in relation to alteration of the register, are to alteration which: (a) involves the correction of a mistake, and (b) prejudicially affects the title of a registered proprietor.”
[6]Paragraph 5 of Schedule 4 provides that:
“The registrar may alter the register for the purpose of: (a) correcting a mistake, (b) bringing the register up to date, (c) giving effect to any estate, right or interest excepted from the effect of registration, or (d) removing a superfluous entry.”
[7]Paragraph 6 of Schedule 4 goes on to say: “(1) This paragraph applies to the power under paragraph 5, so far as relating to rectification. (2) No alteration affecting the title of the proprietor of a registered estate in land may be made under paragraph 5 without the proprietor's consent in relation to land in his possession unless—(a) he has by fraud or lack of proper care caused or substantially contributed to the mistake, or(b) it would for any other reason be unjust for the alteration not to be made. (3) If on an application for alteration under paragraph 5 the registrar has power to make the alteration, the application must be approved, unless there are exceptional circumstances which justify not making the alteration. (4) In sub-paragraph (2), the reference to the title of the proprietor of a registered estate in land includes his title to any registered estate which subsists for the benefit of the estate in land.” (a) he has by fraud or lack of proper care caused or substantially contributed to the mistake, or (b) it would for any other reason be unjust for the alteration not to be made.[8]The Applicant accepted that the Respondent is the proprietor of a registered estate in land and is in possession of that land. The parties were essentially in agreement as to the remaining issues which need to be determined by this Tribunal:(1) Whether the 2003 Transfer was validly executed by the Applicant?(2) If not, whether a mistake has been made on the register?(3) Whether the Respondent had by fraud or lack of proper care caused or substantially contributed to the mistake?(4) Whether it would for any other reason be unjust for the alteration not to be made?[9]In his submissions on behalf of the Applicant, Inderjit did not claim that the Respondent had acted fraudulently but rather he claimed that she had acted without proper care.[10]Before considering the issues which need to be determined, it is useful to provide a chronology of events which can be derived from the documentation and the oral evidence which I heard.

Chronology

[11]On 13th November 1989 the Property was registered in the Applicant’s name. The purchase price was £60,000 and a solicitor’s letter dated 25th September 1989 states that £40,000 of this sum was raised by way of a mortgage from Cheltenham & Gloucester Building Society. The letter records that a deposit of £2,000 had been received from “Mr.Kheela”, presumably the Applicant’s father, Major Kheela. A further £18,000 had been paid to the solicitor although the source is not disclosed. There was no evidence as to whether the Applicant had contributed to the purchase price but, as she was only 19 years old at the time, it may be that her father provided all the purchase monies.[12]The Applicant challenged the authenticity of the solicitors’ letter but having been shown the original letter, I am satisfied that it was genuine. Nothing turns on its contents in any event.[13]There was no evidence that the Applicant ever lived in the Property which appears to have been purchased as an investment and was continually let. The Applicant stated in her witness statement that the Property provided ample parking which was beneficial to her father’s business as a trader. The Applicant and her brothers continued to live at the family home at 4 Heath Close, a few doors away from the Property.[14]In 1993, the Applicant got married and moved to the USA where she has lived ever since. The Property was left in the hands of Major who managed it on her behalf. He used the rent to pay off the mortgage and pay for maintenance. It was accepted by both parties that the mortgage was repaid in full sometime in the 1990s although the Applicant herself had no knowledge of this.[15]On 9th July 2003 the Property was transferred ostensibly by the Applicant to Gurnam for £1. The TR1 is purportedly executed by the Applicant and her signature is purportedly witnessed by a Mr. S Singh of Dhama Douglas, Solicitors of 44 Seymour Place, London. It was common ground that the Applicant was not in the UK on 9th July 2003. The Applicant’s passport had expired on 9th February 2003 and was not renewed until 20th October 2006. The Respondent had listed the dates on which the Applicant was in the UK and the dates did not include any visit in 2003. Nor was there any evidence that Mr. S. Singh had travelled to the USA.[16]In oral evidence, Gurnam said that he had no knowledge of the 2003 Transfer until after the event. It was his understanding that the Property was owned by his father, Major, and the first he knew of the transfer was when his father handed him the Land Certificate. There was no suggestion that Major had travelled to the USA and, as both Gurnam and Inderjit were living in the same house as their father in 2003, it seems highly unlikely that he made such a journey.[17]Following the transfer to Gurnam, the Property continued to be let and the rental income was accumulated.[18]In 2006, Gurnam met the Respondent and they married on 11th February 2007. The Applicant attended the wedding. The couple originally continued to live with Gurnam’s parents at 4 Heath Close but the property became increasingly cramped so Major suggested that Gurnam and the Respondent should move to the Property.[19]At this stage the Property was in a poor state of repair. In or around April 2009, Gurnam took out a mortgage of £80,000 to fund renovation works. Gurnam had met the mortgage instalments and eventually paid off the mortgage 27th February 2012. The Applicant suggested that £50,000 of the funding for the works may have been provided by her father from the accumulation of rent.[20]On 9th September 2009 an application was made for planning permission to construct a two-storey extension and on 18th October 2010 planning permission for a two- storey side and single storey rear extension was granted. I note that the planning permission is addressed to Mr. M. Singh - Major.[21]In April 2011 “Mr. Kheela” entered into a contract with Dr. K Jaswal (contractor) to carry out £60,000 of works to the Property. The Respondent has disclosed copies of various cheques paid by her to K Jaswal and Richmond Construction between 30th June 2011 and 10th November 2011 totalling £30,950. In addition, various other invoices addressed to the Respondent and/or Gurnam for substantial sums spent on the Property have been disclosed. The Property was duly extended and the Respondent, Gurnam and their children moved in in 2012.[22]In 2016, the Applicant came to the UK for a second time, this time for Inderjit’s wedding. Inderjit stated in oral evidence that during this visit, the Respondent acknowledged that the Applicant was the rightful owner of the Property. This was denied by the Respondent.[23]Unfortunately, the Respondent’s marriage got into difficulties and on 5th January 2018 she issued a divorce petition. Her solicitors, Benussi & Co, wrote to Gurnam the same day stating that the Respondent was keen to resolve financial issues as soon as possible. The Applicant confirmed in oral evidence that her father had told her about the divorce although she “wasn’t quite sure”.[24]Two weeks later, on 22nd January 2018, the Applicant texted her father’s solicitor, Julian Fallows, in the following terms:
“Good evening Mr Julian fallows. I am sending my email address. A conversation I had with my father major Singh kheela… Regarding a property on 15A Horseley.heath Tipton…. Feel free to contact me on … Thankyou. Sincerely. Amarjit kaur.”
In oral evidence, the Applicant said that her father had told her that the Respondent was kicking Gurnam out of the Property and she didn’t want her brother to be homeless.[25]The Applicant’s evidence was that Mr. Fallows had not replied but she did not chase him. In the meantime, the Respondent and Gurnam had resolved their differences and two days after the Applicant’s text, the Respondent’s solicitors wrote to Gurnam to say that the Respondent wished the divorce petition to be dismissed. The Applicant took no further steps regarding the Property.[26]Sadly, relations between Respondent and Gurnam were not resolved for long and the Respondent issued a second divorce petition in September 2019. The Applicant was aware of this and on 14th September 2019 she wrote to Mr. Fallows again saying that she had spoken with her father, Major, and they had agreed to pursue “further with this property issue as soon as possible”. She attached a letter addressed to Gurnam of the same date in which she claimed that the transfer of the Property had been done without her consent and that she wanted it transferred back. The letter threatened proceedings. Again, there was no reply from Mr. Fallows and he was not chased. The Applicant did not issue proceedings.[27]At around this time, discussions were taking place between Gurnam and the Applicant by text. The Applicant relies on this exchange of text messages which she says amount to a confession by Gurnam that he forged her signature. These text messages include a message from Gurnam to the Applicant which says:
“Once I get the letter I will accept it and legally arrange for your name to returned back on the deeds as sole owner. As a condition and because I am your younger brother you will allow me and my family to continue living in the property rent free and you can review this anytime you wish…”
[28]The Applicant replied:
“Okay I can do that… Wasn’t dad on the deed with me to …”

To which Gurnam replied:

“No the deed was just in your name”. “Basically your letter is to threaten me with legal action for forging your signature should I fail to accept it.”
The Applicant then wrote:
“… Why don’t you send me a written letter from your lawyer.. The way you want it written .. Then I will it Notarized. From the lawyer from here and send it back to you.”
To which Gurnam replied: The Applicant then wrote:[29]During October 2019 further exchanges took place by text. These exchanges make it clear that the Applicant, Gurnam and their father were trying to ensure that the Property would not pass to the Respondent on the divorce because they feared she would sell it and move away. This could be achieved if the Property was transferred back to the Applicant on the grounds that her signature had been forged. On 14th October 2019, the Applicant wrote to Gurnam: “Well you want the kids to stay in there you can still change the deed and still keep the kids in there it’s a family house just like for Heath close it’s a family asset even Even dad gave the house to you guys is still a family ass it so we don’t want Sandy to sell it which you know Sandy is going to sell that house then it’s going to disappear from the family assets so I really think that you should switch the deed and still keep Sandy and the kids there I think that makes sense”.[30]Later that day, the Applicant wrote to Gurnam as follows:
“Morning dad just called and told me himself that you guys have changed your mind about the property that’s OK if you guises thing I don’t need to get involved in this no more it’s too much stress and good luck….”
[31]Gurnam said in oral evidence that, once he realised that the Respondent would be staying in the Property with his children, he decided that he would not fight her getting the Property in the divorce proceedings. The Property was then transferred by Gurnam to the Respondent pursuant to an order in the matrimonial proceedings dated 2nd March 2021.[32]In November 2022, Major Singh Kheela died.[33]On 8th March 2023, the Applicant wrote to Gurnam stating that it had come to her attention that he had given the Property to his ex-wife as part of a divorce settlement. She said she had requested the property back in September 2019 but neither Gurnam or his lawyer, Julian Fallows had replied. The Applicant demanded immediate action to rectify this situation and return the property back into her name.[34]On 26th September 2023, solicitors instructed by the Applicant wrote a Letter before Action to Gurnam enclosing draft Particulars of Claim. No claim was issued.[35]On 14th August 2024, the Applicant issued this Application

Was the 2003 Transfer validly executed?

[36]The Applicant relies on the report of an expert graphologist, Christina Strang. Ms Strang did not have access to the original 2003 Transfer and had to rely on a photocopy. However, she concluded that the Applicant probably did not sign the questioned signature.[37]I heard oral evidence from Ms Strang who was an impressive witness. She was adamant that the signature on the Transfer was not the Applicant’s. The only reason she had not reached a more definite conclusion was because she had only seen photocopied signatures. The signature on the TR1 was in a completely different form to the Applicant’s signatures on other documents.[38]I have no hesitation in finding that the Applicant did not sign the 2003 Transfer. The Applicant was not in the UK in July 2003 and could not have met with Mr. S Singh of Dhama Douglas. There was also evidence that Mr. Singh had been struck off as a solicitor in 1989 and permanently disqualified from practicing law. Notwithstanding this, he was actively involved in legal work at Dhama Douglas solicitors between 2000 and 2003 apparently without the firm’s knowledge.[39]I make no findings as to who forged the Applicant’s signature. It was clear that Major Singh Kheela was the “controlling mind” in respect of the 2003 Transfer but he is no longer available to give evidence as to who actually signed the Transfer on behalf of the Applicant.

Is there a mistake on the Register?

[40]A forged document has no legal effect and is void ab initio. The registration of the 2003 Transfer was therefore a mistake.[41]The Act provides that a mistake will not, however, be rectified against a proprietor in possession unless one of the conditions in Schedule 4, Para 6 (2) is fulfilled.[42]The mistake took place in 2003 which was three years before the Respondent met Gurnam. The Applicant, through her representative, accepted that the Respondent was not involved in that transfer so she cannot have contributed to that mistake.[43]It seems to me that it is the 2003 mistake which is the relevant mistake. The subsequent transfer derived from that 2003 Transfer. However, in case I am wrong on this, I will also consider whether the Respondent contributed to the later “mistake” of the registration of the Property in her name following the matrimonial court order.[44]It was submitted on behalf of the Applicant that the Respondent exercised a lack of care during the divorce proceedings in failing to question the authenticity of the 2003 Transfer particularly as it stated that only £1 had been paid by way of consideration. It was also claimed that the Respondent’s assertions in correspondence that the 2003 Transfer was lawful were inconsistent with her later claims that she had no knowledge of the events in 2003. It was said that the Respondent had acted without due care in making large financial contributions to the renovation of a property without checking the circumstances in which it had been acquired.[45]The Applicant also relied on an undated text message purportedly from the Respondent which she claimed had been written at the time of Inderjit’s wedding in 2018 after the Applicant visited the Respondent’s family at the Property. The Applicant had commented on how great the house looked and the Respondent replied:
“… Thank you for letting us stay in the house, we are taking care of it :) ..”
[46]Inderjit submitted on behalf of his sister that, as soon as Gurnam had confessed to the forgery in 2019, she immediately wrote to her father’s legal representative stating that she required the property back. However, she was held up by the pandemic and her lack of legal knowledge. Inderjit asserted that it was not plausible that the Respondent did not know about the 2019 challenge to Gurnam’s title.[47]The Respondent’s case is that she had no knowledge that there was any issue with the title to the Property and had no reason to doubt the register. She says she lived in the Property, contributed financially to its maintenance and improvement and built her family life there with her children. She also denied the authenticity of the text message purportedly dated 2018. The Respondent claimed this message had been concocted and that the photograph at the top was taken in 2022 so it could not be genuine.[48]I found the Respondent to be an entirely believable witness and I accept her evidence. She spent substantial sums on renovating the family home and accepted it as part of the divorce settlement. The Property was registered in her husband’s name some years before they met and she had no reason to suspect that there was anything untoward about that registration. In my judgment, there was no reason for the Respondent to ask her husband for a copy of the 2003 Transfer given the registration.[49]The exchange of text messages between the Applicant and Gurnam in 2019 makes it clear that the Respondent did not know that the Applicant had not signed the 2003 Transfer herself. If she had seen those text messages at the time or had been aware of their content, it is inconceivable that she would not have questioned this in the context of the divorce proceedings.[50]By contrast, the Applicant’s evidence was extremely vague and selective. Although the Property was originally registered in her name, she had little to do with it and left the management to her father. It was clear from the evidence of all three siblings that their father was in charge of all property matters and that the Property was considered to be a family asset. The Applicant was aware that the Property had been transferred to her brother by early 2018 at the latest. The family was obviously very close and she may have known much earlier. It was only after her father’s death that the Applicant seriously contemplated legal proceedings. The threats of proceedings in 2018/2019 were part of a conspiracy between the Applicant, Gurnam and Major to put the Property outside the reach of the Respondent in the divorce proceedings. In the event, that conspiracy was not followed through.[51]I reject the argument that the Respondent contributed to “the mistake” by lack of proper care on her part.[52]The Applicant did not suggest that there was any other reason why it would be unjust for the alteration not to be made. I find that there is no such reason. The Property has been the Respondent’s home since 2012 and she lives there with her two children. The Respondent has spent large sums on the Property which have no doubt increased its value substantially. By contrast the Applicant has had almost no involvement with the Property since its purchase in 1989 and lives in the USA. There was no evidence that she had contributed anything towards the purchase of the Property. The first mortgage was paid by rental income and the second mortgage was paid by Gurnam. The Applicant knew about the 2003 Transfer for at least 7 years before bringing any proceedings.

Conclusion

[53]I shall direct the Registrar to cancel the application in whole.[54]The usual rule is that the unsuccessful party should pay the successful party’s costs of this application from the date the matter was transferred to this Tribunal – 25th February 2025. My preliminary view is that the Applicant should pay the Respondent’s costs, if any, on the standard basis.[55]Any party who wishes to make an application for costs should file and serve by email(a) written submissions on the principle of who should pay costs and upon what basis and(b) provide a schedule of the costs claimed in or substantially in the form of Court Form N260 on the Tribunal and on the other party by 5 pm on 28th May 2026..[56]If such costs application is served, then the recipient should file and serve by 5 pm on 11th June 2026 their submissions in response.[57]The party applying for costs may then file and serve a brief response by no later than 5 pm on 25th June 2026.[58]The Tribunal will then give its decision on who should pay costs and make any further directions in relation to the determination of those costs. Judge Nicola Muir Dated this 7th May 2026 BY ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL