Who is the real Radha? Bengaluru police get court nod to probe identities of four claimants to Rs 100 crore property | Bangalore News

The police case was challenged in the high court by Ashwin Sancheti, a director of realty firm Sattva Resi Pvt Ltd, who signed a joint development agreement worth over Rs 20 crore for the disputed property with the children of a woman named Radha, who claimed to have inherited the property. Sancheti was earlier arrested and released on bail.

Allowing police investigation in the ‘four Radhas’ case to continue, a single-judge bench of the Karnataka HC told the state government, “You can’t presume that respondents are innocent and only the petitioners are guilty. You will have to consider everybody’s case and come up with an investigation report, and let us see.”

The HC, earlier on November 27, had granted interim protection to Ashwin Sancheti of Sattva.

“It is seen that the dispute between the petitioners and respondent No.2 is purely civil in nature. The case of the petitioners is that respondent No.2 is trying to arm-twist the petitioners by trying to initiate criminal proceedings,” the HC had stated while asking the petitioners to cooperate with the investigation and asking the police not to take coercive action.

“Since it is a vacant land worth over Rs 100 crores. Three groups of persons plead claim over this property by using forged documents,” the counsel for the Radha – who filed the police complaint against the real estate firm director and others – said during the HC arguments.

“All these aspects came to our knowledge only in 2024. The question is who is the original owner. Who is S Krishnan? Krishnan died leaving behind his wife Radha. All the original title deeds for the purchase of the property by Krishnan is with his wife Radha – the de facto complainant. The question is of the identity of the owner and his wife Radha,” it was argued.

“In the original title deed, there is a thumb impression of Krishnan. The original is with us. In the marriage register, the marriage of Krishnan and R Radha is registered. The marriage register has the thumb impressions and the police summoned these documents during investigations and we have produced it. We have produced the original title deeds. These were sent to FSL and it has been established that this Radha who is the complainant is the wife of original owner S Krishnan,” the counsel argued.

“Thumb impression analysis is a perfected science and an FSL report has come and based on this report it is categorically concluded that complainant is rightful owner and other three claimants were set up with fake documents. All the three other sets have committed forgery and it is now proven by FSL report,” the counsel for the de facto complainant argued.

A senior counsel for the realty firm executive argued that the original documents were in their possession and could not have been subjected to forensic tests. He also questioned the police’s interference in a matter that is purely civil in nature.

The additional public prosecutor, who appeared on behalf of the police, filed objections to the plea for quashing the probe, saying the investigations should be allowed to continue since the matter involved a serious crime.

The case “concerns a serious criminal investigation into various people who claim they are the original Smt. Radha wife of late S. Krishnan. The investigation is still in progress, and crucial evidence is being collected to establish roles of various accused, including petitioner. Interference by this Hon’ble Court at this stage, when investigation is ongoing and the facts are yet to be fully established, would be premature and unwarranted,” the state government said.

“It is submitted that in the present case, it appears that these four or five women claim to be Radha, who was married to the late Sri S. Krishnan. An investigation is necessary to determine who is the real Radha, who was married to the late Krishnan. Therefore, the continued pendency of the civil dispute will not prevent the investigation into the allegations,” the state further argued.

The case involves alleged forgery of a gift deed in the name of Radha, who died before the date of the deed; a gift deed by another Radha R to her children, who signed the joint development deal with Sattva; and a third woman named Radha with a daughter; apart from the woman who filed a police complaint claiming to be childless and only wife of Krishnan.

The FIR in the case details multiple impersonation chains involving different groups. It also refers to multiple fraudulent sale deeds registered for the properties in question.

According to the police complaint filed by the 65-year-old woman, 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 and its nature had been changed.

As per 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.

“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,” said the complaint filed in October by Radha, who claims to be the absolute owner.

Realty firm’s defence

Sattva Group, a major real estate firm in Bengaluru, has denied any involvement by its executive or the firm in any illegalities.

“Sattva Group clarifies that it entered into a Joint Development Agreement dated August 14, 2023, with Smt. R. Radha and her four children, the legal heirs of the late Shri S. Krishnan for the development of a 12 acres 30.5 guntas land parcel in Bandapura village and the involvement of the Sattva Group in the project is strictly limited to the terms outlined in the agreement,” the company stated after the arrest of Sancheti last month.

The company has called the allegations against it and Sancheti baseless and contradictory to facts and legal records. Sattva Group emphasised that it “follows all legal requirements and established business processes” while denying “any involvement in illegal activities such as impersonation or document fabrication”.