The High Court of Karnataka has upheld trial court’s decision of making a sub-registrar as an accused instead of treating him as a witness as per the charge sheet in a case of registration of two gift deeds allegedly in a fraudulent manner.
Face trial, says court
The sub-registrar has to face trial to prove that he had in fact had obtained the signature and thumb impression of an elderly woman by visiting her house contrary to the documents, which claim that the woman was admitted in the intensive care unit of a private hospital and she was not in a sound state of disposition on that day to affix her signature, the High Court said.
Justice M. Nagaprasanna passed the order while dismissing a petition filed by Raghavendra A., who was working as sub-registrar of Basavanagudi in Bengaluru during 2013. The petitioner had questioned trial court’s decision of treating him as an accused instead of a witness as cited in the charge sheet.
The police, in the charge sheet filed against five persons, had treated the petitioner as a witness in the alleged fraud committed in registration of the gift deeds in the name of B.N. Sharadamba in March 2013. The chargesheet was filed after the trial court had ordered investigation of a complaint filed by B.N. Sreekantaswamy, a brother of Ms. Sharadamba.
The complainant was filed in 2016 when the complainant came to know about registration of gift deed, in favour of his other sister, B.N. Parvathi (who is arraigned as accused number one in the charge sheet) and his mother, after he received legal notice in 2016 from Ms. Parvathi for handing over possession of the property, which was in complainant’s possession, based on the gift deed. The legal notice was issued after the death of Ms. Sharadamba.
In hospital
The gift deed was registered on March 12, 2013, when Ms. Sharadamba was an in-patient in the hospital between March 8, 2013, and April 6, 2013, the complainant had stated.
The complainant, after securing documents from the hospital about admission of Ms. Sharadamaba, pointed out that sub-registrar’s claim that he visited Ms. Sharadamba’s house and obtained her signature and thumb impression was false. Ms. Sharadamba was admitted in the ICU and she was not in the house to which sub-registrar was said to have visited as the house was in possession of the complainant, it was contented.
