Overseas property investment by Indian residents is becoming a more visible part of wealth allocation, even as overall outward remittances have softened. Data cited in a new Knight Frank India and IREX survey show property-related remittances rising 64% to $528.7 million in 2025-26 from $322.82 million in 2024-25, suggesting that international real estate is gaining importance not merely as a lifestyle purchase but as part of a broader financial and mobility strategy.
The trend matters because it reveals a change in how some Indian households view property. Domestic real estate remains the larger component of respondents’ portfolios, accounting for 32% on average, but overseas property now represents 13%, compared with about 5% a decade ago. Together, the two categories account for 45% of respondents’ wealth portfolios. The survey therefore points to a portfolio structure in which property remains central, while its geographic spread is widening.
The report, titled Keys Beyond Borders, is based on respondents and intermediaries answering on behalf of buyers. It records stated intentions rather than completed transactions and is not representative of every Indian who buys property overseas. Those limitations are important: the findings describe the direction of interest among the surveyed group, not the size of the entire Indian overseas property market.
Even with that qualification, the survey aligns with the movement visible in Reserve Bank of India data. Property purchases accounted for about 1.8% of total outward remittances under the Liberalised Remittance Scheme, or LRS, in 2025-26. The increase in property-related remittances occurred despite an approximately 2% decline in total LRS outflows. That divergence indicates that overseas property has been gaining share within a remittance category that includes several permitted uses.
The motivation is also changing. Rental income and capital appreciation were cited by 61% of respondents considering overseas property purchases. But when broader decision factors were assessed, residency and Golden Visa opportunities ranked first among five considerations. Portfolio diversification and currency hedging, business expansion and tax benefits, and children’s education and lifestyle improvement were also identified as influences.
This combination makes overseas real estate different from a conventional yield-led investment. A buyer may be evaluating a property’s rental potential, but may also be considering access to another country, a future base for family members, education options or a hedge against currency movement. The property is consequently being assessed as both an asset and a mobility instrument. That does not guarantee that the purchase will deliver all those benefits, but it explains why residency-linked markets are attracting attention alongside established investment destinations.
The destinations being considered reflect this mix of financial and lifestyle objectives. The survey lists the UAE, Greece, Thailand, Portugal, Australia, the United States, the United Kingdom, Bali in Indonesia, Canada and Malaysia. Georgia, Cyprus, Malta and Latvia are also attracting interest, partly because of residency programmes. These markets differ substantially in ownership rules, taxation, rental demand, maintenance costs and residency eligibility, so the common thread is not a single investment model. It is the search for a combination of returns, access and diversification.
The profile of the surveyed buyer also shows that the trend is concentrated among financially established groups. Business owners, traders and industrialists make up 53% of respondents, while corporate executives and working professionals account for 30%. First-generation entrepreneurs represent 11%. The professional segment has risen from 7% a decade ago, indicating that interest is not limited entirely to traditional business families, although the survey does not establish how this shift translates into actual purchase volumes.
Age and existing ownership are equally significant. About 76% of respondents are between 35 and 50 years old, and 84% already own property overseas. This suggests that the survey is largely capturing people with prior exposure to international real estate rather than first-time buyers unfamiliar with foreign markets. Existing ownership may reduce the psychological and informational barriers to another purchase, while also making overseas property a continuing part of household wealth planning.
The preferred asset type is predominantly residential and relatively large by Indian urban standards. Apartments and condominiums account for 69% of preferences, followed by villas and townhouses at 26%. Penthouses represent 4%, and branded residences 1%. About 76% of respondents are considering homes measuring between 1,500 and 2,500 square feet. Nearly half prefer properties between 2,000 and 2,500 square feet, while 27% favour homes between 1,500 and 2,000 square feet.
The intended ticket size is substantial. As many as 85% of respondents plan to invest between $250,000 and $1 million. However, this range must be read alongside India’s remittance rules. Under the LRS, a resident Indian generally may remit up to $250,000 per individual per financial year for permitted transactions, including eligible overseas property purchases. The limit applies cumulatively across permitted transactions; it is not a separate $250,000 allowance reserved only for property.
That distinction is particularly important when interpreting the survey’s investment range. A prospective buyer cannot automatically assume that an investment of $250,000 to $1 million can be remitted by one individual in a single financial year. Eligible family members may pool remittances for a property purchase where applicable conditions, including co-ownership requirements, are met. Buyers must also comply with the Foreign Exchange Management Act, Indian tax requirements and the rules governing property ownership and taxation in the destination country.
The regulatory framework therefore sits at the centre of the trend. The LRS provides a channel for permitted outward remittances, but it does not remove the need for transaction-level compliance. The financial capacity to buy a property and the legal capacity to transfer funds are separate questions. The same applies to residency programmes. Buying a property does not automatically confer residency or citizenship; eligibility depends on the rules of the relevant country and programme, which can vary by investment amount, property type and other conditions.
This creates a gap between the marketing language surrounding international property and the administrative reality faced by buyers. A property may be presented as an income-generating asset, a route to global mobility or a family safeguard, but each claim depends on a separate system. Rental income is affected by occupancy and local operating costs. Capital gains depend on market performance and transaction taxes. Residency depends on a government programme and its eligibility rules. Currency hedging can reduce some exposure while introducing other risks.
The survey’s numbers also show why headline growth should not be mistaken for a mass-market shift. Property-related remittances of $528.7 million represented only around 1.8% of total outward remittances under the LRS. The surveyed buyers are predominantly high-value investors, with 85% targeting properties worth at least $250,000. The increase is therefore more accurately understood as a growing preference among a financially capable segment than as a broad movement across all Indian households.
For Indian cities, the development offers an indirect signal about the changing geography of household wealth. Domestic property continues to account for a larger share of the surveyed portfolios, but overseas holdings have expanded from approximately 5% to 13% over a decade. That shift places some Indian real estate decisions within an international comparison set. Buyers may now evaluate a domestic purchase alongside opportunities in the UAE, Europe, Southeast Asia, North America or other markets, based not only on price but also on currency, mobility and regulation.
The evidence confirms rising interest in overseas real estate, but it does not establish how many intended purchases will be completed or whether the properties will achieve the returns buyers expect. The most consequential questions are likely to be transaction-specific: whether rental demand matches projections, whether taxes and maintenance costs alter net returns, whether foreign ownership rules restrict use or resale, and whether residency expectations are legally valid. As overseas property becomes a larger part of Indian wealth strategies, those institutional and compliance details will matter as much as the initial purchase price.
