BENGALURU: Taking advantage of a helpless 70-year-old woman afflicted with multiple ailments, a couple and another woman allegedly got her two-storey house transferred to their name through a ‘gift deed’ by taking her signatures on the pretext of getting her a Rs 30,000 per month widow pension.
The house belonged to Nirmala, a resident of HRBR Layout. The site was allotted by the Bangalore Development Authority to her husband, who passed away intestate. Nirmala, suffering from age-related ailments and having lost two of her three children, alleged that one K Sarah (27), and her husband Mohan Babu, entered into an oral agreement with her, securing the ground floor of the building for a monthly rent of Rs 15,000 and remitting an advance of Rs 70,000.
In the complaint lodged with the Banasawadi police recently, Nirmala alleged that she learnt from her neighbours that the accused had purportedly manipulated documents of her property. Apprising her second son and daughter-in-law of the situation, she alleged that the accused, on the pretext of helping her get a widow pension amounting to Rs 30,000 per month, obtained her signature on undisclosed documents. They also fabricated a gift deed in their favour, ostensibly aiming to divest Nirmala of her property.
Sensing trouble, Sarah and another accused Leema (49), residing at Sampanha Layout on Kammanahalli Main Road, approached a city court seeking anticipatory bail, claiming that the allegations were false, but admitted that they had the gift deed.
After hearing the parties, 27th Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge Hareesha A, on February 8, said though the counsel for the petitioners contended that the allegations were purely civil in nature, the perpetration of fraud against a woman senior citizen transcends the realm of a mere civil dispute.
“The adverse impact on the complainant, during the twilight of her life, is not to be dismissed lightly. The prospect of an elderly woman having to contend with the vexing task of safeguarding her valuable property in the face of alleged fraudulent activities underscores the gravity of the situation,” the judge said while rejecting the anticipatory bail petition.
The judge further said that there is prima facie material warranting consideration, suggesting the petitioners’ involvement in the offence, particularly for the retrieval of documents allegedly stolen from the complainant’s residence.