In Bengaluru, tenants transfer property using a “gift deed,” fooling a 70-year-old grandmother

A couple and another lady reportedly used a 70-year-old widow who was suffering from several illnesses as leverage, persuading her to sign a “gift deed” transferring ownership of her two-story property to them on the false pretense of receiving a widow pension of Rs 30,000 per month.

Nirmala, a resident of HRBR Layout, owned the home. The Bangalore Development Authority gave her late husband, who died intestate, the land. A 27-year-old woman named K Sarah and her husband Mohan Babu allegedly made an oral arrangement with Nirmala, who is suffering from age-related maladies and has lost two of her three children, to secure the bottom floor of the building in exchange for a monthly rent payment of Rs 15,000 and an advance of Rs 70,000.

Nirmala said in her latest police complaint against Banasawadi that she found out from her neighbors that the accused had allegedly falsified property records. She informed her second son and daughter-in-law of the circumstances and said that the accused had signed her signature on confidential papers under the guise of assisting her in obtaining a widow’s pension of Rs 30,000 per month. Additionally, they allegedly intended to deprive Nirmala of her belongings by forging a gift deed in their favor.

Sensing difficulty, Sarah and another accused person, Leema (49), who lived in Sampanha Layout on Kammanahalli Main Road, went to a city court and asked for anticipatory release. They denied the accusations, although they acknowledged owning the gift deed.

Although the petitioners’ counsel argued that the allegations were only civil in nature, 27th Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge Hareesha A stated after hearing from the parties on February 8 that the fraud against a senior citizen woman goes beyond simple civil litigation.

“It is important not to minimize the negative effects on the complainant in her later years. The court denied the anticipatory bail motion, stating that it “underlines the gravity of the situation” that an old lady could have to deal with the difficult responsibility of protecting her precious property in the face of suspected fraudulent acts.

The court went on to state that there is prima facie evidence, indicating the petitioners’ possible participation in the crime, especially with regard to the recovery of papers purportedly taken from the complainant’s home.