Valuation check: 160 m² duplex in Bengaluru, asking ₹87,260,000

B

buildTheFinch

Property investor
The listing presents this as an average-condition duplex, but I hesitate to accept the implied valuation without stronger sale evidence. The Bengaluru property is a 2-bed of about 160 m², asking ₹87,260,000, or ₹545,375 per m² before transaction costs.

Good light and location support the price; dated finishes work against it. There are three asking comparables and only one completed transaction, so I would rather test several condition cases than claim a precise deduction. I am also unsure whether the floor areas were measured consistently or whether parking has been included without a separate value.

Which fact should decide the next step: the completed sale’s date and micro-location, the measurement basis, parking, or any existing lease and its remaining term? I have excluded future appreciation from the base case and would verify the resulting range with a local appraisal.
 
With only one completed comparable, I would use condition adjustments as scenarios rather than claim a precise discount—perhaps test 5%, 10% and 15% against the best genuinely comparable property. For floor area, avoid multiplying every extra metre by the full average rate; larger homes can have a lower marginal rate per m².

The missing fact that matters most is the exact micro-location. Even a physically similar duplex may be weak evidence if its immediate setting differs.
 
How close is the completed sale in size, condition and transaction date? Those details matter more than having three additional listings. I’d also want to know whether the 160 m² is measured on the same basis across all four comparables. If one figure includes balconies, common areas or unusable duplex circulation space and another does not, the per-m² comparison will mislead.
 
Agreed on measurement consistency. I’d build a small table showing sale versus asking status, measured area, bedrooms, condition, parking, outdoor space and distance from the subject. Keep the completed sale as the anchor, then use the three listings only to indicate what sellers currently hope to achieve. Any floor-area adjustment should come after making sure the areas mean the same thing.
 
I’m less comfortable with the suggested 5–15% condition range unless there is some basis for renovation cost or buyer behaviour in that micro-market. “Dated” can mean cosmetic finishes, or it can conceal expensive work. Those are different adjustments.

Before applying a percentage, separate visible refurbishment from building-level issues and service charges. At ₹87,260,000, even a seemingly modest percentage assumption moves the valuation substantially.
 
Parking could also change the comparison more than a broad floor-area adjustment, especially if the completed sale and subject do not have equivalent spaces. The same applies to private outdoor space.

My next steps would be: confirm the area definition, establish tenure and any remaining lease length if relevant, obtain service-charge details, and identify exactly what parking or outdoor rights transfer. Then ask the appraiser to reconcile those items explicitly rather than provide only a headline value.
 
One more point: don’t blend all four comparables into a simple average. I’d show a range led by the completed sale, with separate upward or downward adjustments for micro-location, condition and property-specific features. The asking listings can serve as an upper-market sense check, but without negotiated or completed figures they should not carry equal weight.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top