A land deal for a 12-acre property valued at over Rs 20 crore in the Bandapura village on the eastern fringe of Bengaluru city, near Hoskote, has become mired in legal issues on account of four women with the name Radha staking claim to be the wife of S Krishnan, the original owner of the property who died in 1986.
The property dispute has resulted in the registration of an FIR in the Avalahalli police station of Bengaluru and the arrest, and release on bail, of a senior executive of real estate firm Sattva Resi Pvt Ltd, Ashwin Sancheti, who signed a joint development agreement (JDA) on August 14, 2023, with the legal heirs of one Radha R for construction on the 12-acre property.
The case involves alleged forgery of a gift deed in the name of Radha, who died before the date of the deed, and a gift deed by another Radha R to her children, who signed the joint development deal with Sattva.
A third woman named Radha filed a police complaint, claiming to be the only wife of the original landowner Krishnan. After her husband’s death, she left Bengaluru to live in Tamil Nadu. A fourth group also registered the property at another sub-registrar’s office, claiming links to one Radha.
Woman from Tamil Nadu files police complaint
According to a police complaint filed by the 65-year-old woman from Tamil Nadu, identified as Radha, through a general power of attorney, she is the absolute owner of the land in Bandapura and was shocked when she went to inspect her property recently and found that someone else was in possession of the property and its nature had been changed.
According to the complaint, the land was purchased by her husband Krishnan with a registered sale deed dated October 6, 1978, which is in her possession, and her husband died on May 29, 1986. After her husband’s death, her name was reportedly entered in the revenue records since she did not have children, and she was in possession of the land.
“After my husband’s death, I was living in Tamil Nadu and visited Bengaluru for my work. In recent days, when I visited the property in Bengaluru, I was shocked to find that someone else had occupied my land. When I got the property documents checked, I found that the land had been claimed by the children of a woman called Radha,” says the October 22 FIR, quoting Radha, who claims to be the absolute owner of the property.
One Radha transfers land to her children
Story continues below this ad
The property was allegedly registered with fake documents, including a sale deed in the name of another woman, Radha R, who claimed to be Krishnan’s wife. She later transferred the land to her four children through a gift deed in March 2023.
Meanwhile, a third group comprising one Lingaraja and others staked a claim to the property, asserting that it was given to them under a will dated December 14, 2022, “executed by one Radha”, who claimed to be the wife of Krishnan.
The group is alleged to have claimed compensation of over Rs 11 lakh from the National Highways Authority of India f(NHAI) for land acquired for road development through the impersonation of a Radha, who claimed to be the landowner.
The second group, the legal heirs of Radha R, who are currently in possession of the land, also filed a complaint in 2023 with the police regarding the alleged impersonation of Radha by the third group.
Story continues below this ad
A fourth group, comprising one Venkata Rama Naidu Kola and others, have also used the name of Radha to register the same property in their names, the FIR alleges.
“These three groups of accused persons, with the intention of making illegal profits, have fabricated documents and registered claims on the property as their own. They have illegally entered my property and are posing a threat. They have not only cheated me but also the courts,” says the police complaint filed in October by Radha from Tamil Nadu, who claims to be the absolute owner.
“The dispute between the parties is in respect of the marital status of the plaintiff (Radha who claims to be absolute owner) and that of the defendant No.4 (Radha who gifted the land to her children who signed the deal for real estate development) and as well as the deceased Radha claimed by the defendants No.1 to 3 which is the triangle claim of the marital status,” a district court noted last year regarding the civil dispute.
Real estate executive seeks quashing of FIR
The matter has now reached the Karnataka High Court, with the real estate executive Ashwin Sancheti from the Sattva group, who was released on bail following an arrest two weeks ago, and others accused of cheating and forgery seeking a quashing of the FIR registered by the Bengaluru police on October 22. The matter is likely to be heard in the second week of December.
Story continues below this ad
In the case of one of the accused, Venkata Rama Naidu Kola, the HC stayed further investigations on November 24. “Learned senior counsel appearing for petitioner has contended that the petitioner has purchased the property in question from Smt. Radha i.e., accused No.7, by virtue of different sale deeds dated 25.04.2024 vide Annexures B to D (copies of the sale deeds),” the HC noted last week.
“It is contended that the dispute is purely civil in nature, where suits are pending, and to unnecessarily harass the petitioner, he has been arraigned as accused No.8 in the FIR. Further, contended that the complaint is lodged by the power of attorney holder, which is not permissible,” the HC observed.
Sattva Group, a major real estate firm in Bengaluru, has denied any involvement by its executive or the firm in any illegalities. Sattva entered into the JDA with “Smt. R. Radha and her four children, the legal heirs of the late Shri S. Krishnan” for the development of a 12-acre-plus land parcel and the group’s “involvement in the project is strictly limited to the terms outlined in the agreement,” the company stated after the arrest of Sancheti.
The company has called the allegations against it and Sancheti baseless and contradictory to facts and legal records. Sattva Group has emphasised that it “follows all legal requirements and established business processes” while denying “any involvement in illegal activities such as impersonation or document fabrication”.