4 women claimed Rs 100-crore Bengaluru plot as heir; the real ‘Radha’ stands up finally

Now, after months of investigation untangling a web of forgery and identity theft, the Bengaluru police have finally identified the real widow and communicated their intent to file a closure report to the Karnataka High Court on August 3.

Reporting its findings to Justice M I Arun, the police confirmed that the genuine owner is the second Radha, who legitimately inherited the Bandapura village land following her husband S Krishnan’s death in 1986. Her children, having received the property through valid gift deeds, subsequently executed a joint development agreement and general power of attorney with Sattva Group.

The police informed the court that Ashwin Sancheti, senior executive at Sattva Group, who was previously arrested and released on bail, is completely innocent of any wrongdoing.

“After the investigation, the state is of the opinion that petitioner no.2 (Radha) is the legally wedded wife of late S Krishnan, who owned the property and petitioner nos. 3, 4 and 5 are their children,” the High Court noted while recording the police investigation details.

“That petitioner no.1 (Sancheti), who represents a limited company, got a joint development agreement and the general power of Attorney executed from petitioner nos. 2 to 5 to develop the property, which is the subject matter of the writ petition and that he had no role in executing any other documents pertaining to the ownership of the property,” the High Court added.

Complainant sticks to her claims

The court also noted that the probe revealed that the woman who filed the original FIR alleging fraud was herself an impostor named Chaitra, acting alongside a general power of attorney holder to grab the multi-crore land parcel illegally.

The court directed the initiation of proceedings against the complainant, who claimed to be the real Radha through a general power of attorney holder identified as K Venkatappa, 65.

After the police report was submitted, the complainant stated that four different people were falsely claiming to be her in an attempt to usurp her property. She insisted that she is “the true Radha” and maintained that her complaint is legitimate. She also said she would contest the police’s closure report for the case before the magistrate.

Justice M I Arun directed the Avalahalli jurisdiction police to file the closure report and that the trial court should process the same in accordance with law and pass appropriate orders thereafter.

Background of the disputed plot

The dispute centres on 12 acres and 30.5 guntas of open land in eastern Bengaluru. The matter escalated in October 2025 when an FIR was registered based on allegations from a woman claiming to be the childless, sole surviving spouse of Krishnan. She accused Sancheti and others of using forged documents and impersonation to usurp the property.

According to the complaint filed by the 65-year-old woman, 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 and found that someone else was in possession 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.

The police case was challenged in the High Court by Sancheti, whose firm signed the joint development agreement worth over Rs 20 crore for the disputed property with the real heir Radha’s children.

The Karnataka High Court in January this year ruled that the case involves “matters that cry out for investigation”. “To interdict such investigation at the threshold would be to prematurely close the doors of criminal justice and to permit serious allegations of fraud to go unanswered,” Justice M Nagaprasanna ruled on January 20.

The High Court then pointed out that the case is not confined to rival claims over land titles but “traverses far deeper, into the realm of deceit, impersonation, forgery and calculated fraud”.