Elderly Property Dispute: Allegations and Legal Proceedings Explained

Background of the Case

The complaint presented to the police indicates a long-standing relationship between the father of the Respondent and the Complainant’s husband, who is 89 years old. Amid a partition dispute within the Respondent’s family, the Complainant’s husband permitted the Respondent and his family to reside in their home, as the Complainant's daughters had all married, leaving ample space available.

Allegations Made

The police complaint filed by the Complainant alleges that due to certain medications, her husband lost consciousness. During this period, the Respondent attempted to draft a will that would name himself as the heir to the Complainant’s husband’s estate. However, the husband did not sign any such documents. Following this, it is alleged that the Respondent obtained a power of attorney utilizing a stamp paper, acquiring the Complainant’s husband's thumbprint and signature while he was in a semi-conscious state. Nevertheless, her husband managed to mark the signature with red ink to indicate it was not genuine. Since these events, the Respondent and his family have reportedly threatened both the Complainant and her husband, which contributed to her husband’s subsequent death. The Complainant is now seeking relief to evict the Respondent and his family from her home.
The Complainant further claims that the Respondent is guilty under Clause (2) of Part-IV of the First Schedule to the Chartered Accountants Act, 1949 for the following actions:
- Subjecting her to mental harassment
- Preventing the transfer of property to her name after her husband's passing
- Prohibiting her and her daughters from entering their own house
- Physically harming her
- Demanding ₹15 Lakhs as compensation for vacating the premises and covering property-related expenses.
In a letter dated 19th April 2019, the Complainant asserts that the Respondent has initiated legal proceedings in the Hon'ble High Court of Chhattisgarh regarding the property. She emphasizes that, according to the final will of her husband, all properties and bank accounts rightfully belong to her. The Complainant also notes that the Nagar Nigam office, Raipur, has officially transferred the property into her name.
The Complainant's letter also contends that the Respondent has submitted a request at the Tehsil to have the property transferred to his name. She disputes this and has provided relevant documents, although the proceedings remain unresolved, reportedly due to the Respondent's influence. The Complainant, aged 82, states that this situation has caused her significant mental distress.
To back her claims, the Complainant has substantiated her allegations with various documents:
- A copy of the police complaint stating that legal heirs are being denied entry into the premises
- A copy of her late husband’s unregistered final will indicating the property’s transfer to her after his death
- A copy of a compromise agreement confirming a payment of ₹15 Lakhs to the Respondent
- Video clips evidencing her exclusion from her home.

Proceedings Overview

A summary of the hearings conducted in this matter is outlined below:

S. No.	Date of Hearing	Status of Hearing
1	04th May 2023	Part heard; adjourned for final opportunity to the complainant.
2	27th July 2023	Adjourned at Respondent’s request.
3	20th March 2024	Matter heard, and hearing concluded.

Respondent's Submissions

In a Written Statement dated 21st July 2023, the Respondent stated:

8.1 The Respondent denies the allegations of harassment towards the elderly Complainant regarding her deceased husband’s property. He claims legal action was necessitated by the presence of multiple registered wills, one executed in Bhopal on 07.11.2009 and another in Betul on 29.06.2015, both naming him as a beneficiary. He contests the validity of the alleged Will from 15.09.2017, asserting it is forged, unregistered, and does not address the cancellation of earlier wills.

8.2 The Respondent also points to police investigations that found no basis for claims of physical harm or obstruction of property access. The ₹15 Lakhs payment cited by the Complainant is clarified as a voluntary settlement for rent and property maintenance, not as a coercive measure to vacate the premises. Ongoing legal proceedings in various courts and revenue authorities are noted, with the Respondent urging the Complainant to provide concrete evidence to substantiate her claims. Overall, the Respondent maintains that his claims to the estate are valid and that the allegations are unfounded.

Board's Observations

The Board of Discipline, after reviewing the evidence from both parties, acknowledges that the dispute centers on the ownership rights to the property belonging to Late Shri M.C. Somani, the husband of the Complainant. The Complainant relies on an unregistered Will from 15.09.2017, while the Respondent cites two registered wills made on 07.11.2009 and 29.06.2015.
The registered Will from 07.11.2009 designates the Respondent as the beneficiary. Conversely, the Will from 29.06.2015 allows the Complainant to hold property rights until her death, at which point the property is to be transferred to the Respondent.
Despite assertions supported by video/audio evidence, the Complainant has not provided substantial documentation to validate her residency at the disputed property. Similarly, the Respondent has not established the current living situation of the Complainant.
The claim regarding the ₹15 Lakhs received by the Respondent is recorded in a registered compromise deed dated 30.12.2017, documenting a mutual agreement for rent and maintenance expenses, lacking evidence to indicate that the amount was for vacating the property.
Upon concluding the hearings, the Board determined that the matter pertains primarily to a civil property dispute arising from the deceased husband's wills. As such, it lies outside the jurisdiction of this forum to adjudicate. The Board concurs with the Director (Discipline)’s Prima Facie Opinion, finding the Respondent 'NOT GUILTY.'

Conclusion

In light of the findings, the Board concludes that the Respondent is 'NOT GUILTY' of Other Misconduct as defined by Item (2) of Part IV of the First Schedule to the Chartered Accountants Act, 1949. Consequently, the Board orders the closure of the case in accordance with Rule 15 (2) of the Chartered Accountants (Procedure of Investigations of Professional and Other Misconduct and Conduct of Cases) Rules, 2007.