**Daughter overturns Sikh father’s will after he leaves majority of £870,000 estate to her brothers
Three sons shared most of the fortune, while three daughters received just £40,000 between them **
By Louise Boyle
The daughter of a Sikh pensioner who left only a fraction of his £870,000 will to her, and the majority of the fortune to his sons, has won a legal battle to declare the document invalid.
**Ranjit Singh died in his 70s in March 2009 leaving almost his entire estate to his three sons Jarnail, Ajaib and Jugdeep Balvinder. Mr Singh, of Crawley, West Sussex, signed the will in 1999. Two of his daughters - including Balvinder Kaur Ahluwalia, who took the case to the High Court - **** received £20,000 each, while a third sister got nothing.
**
After her father’s death, Mrs Ahluwalia, a 42-year-old shipping solicitor, became locked in a legal battle over the will with her three brothers.
Mr Singh was brought up in a poor Punjabi village but forged a successful career with British Bakeries after moving to the UK.
He lived frugally throughout his life and at the time of his death, his estate was valued at £872,890.
During a costly four-day hearing, Mrs Ahluwalia challenged the will on grounds that the two witnesses to the document were not both present at the same time to see Mr Singh sign it.The will was declared invalid and the estate will now be divided equally between Mr Singh’s six children.
Jarnail Singh, who is also solicitor, had defended his father’s will. He argued that in line with Sikh tradition, the eldest sons assume the main role and daughters are treated as part of their husband’s family and provided for through large wedding dowries.
In his verdict, Judge Mark Cawson QC said there was ‘the strongest evidence’ that the legal formalities had not been complied with. Central to the judge’s ruling was the evidence of one witness to the will, Mr Singh’s 78-year-old next-door neighbour, Maurice Grantham. Mr Grantham was ‘adamant’ that he and the other witness were not present at the same time when Mr Singh signed.
Judge Cawson said: 'I am conscious, and have kept fully in mind, that the effect of this judgment is to frustrate Mr Singh’s testamentary intentions, and the result will be there is an intestacy as there is no later will. Of Mrs Ahluwalia who brought the case, the judge added: ‘I gained the impression that the present litigation is very much a mission on her part to correct what she perceives to be injustice and, sadly, there is plainly no love lost between her and the brothers.’
Any thoughts.. right or wrong?