Jaswinder Kaur Sangha v The Estate of Diljit Kaur Sangha
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | Master Bowles |
| Judgment Date | 16 June 2021 |
| Neutral Citation | [2021] EWHC 1599 (Ch) |
| Court | Chancery Division |
| Docket Number | Case No: PT-2017-000104 |
| Date | 16 June 2021 |
[2021] EWHC 1599 (Ch)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
BUSINESS AND PROPERTY COURTS OF ENGLAND AND WALES
PROPERTY TRUSTS AND PROBATE LIST (CH)
Royal Courts of Justice
Rolls Building, London EC4 1NL
AND IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
BUSINESS AND PROPERTY COURTS OF
ENGLAND AND WALES
PROPERTY TRUSTS AND PROBATE LIST (CH)
Deputy Master Bowles
Case No: PT-2017-000104
Case No: PT-2019-000757
Mark Blackett-Ord (instructed by Sebastians) for the Claimant in both Claims
William East (instructed by Huggins & Lewis Foskett) for the 1 st, 2 nd and 3 rd Defendants in PT-2017-000104 and the Defendant in PT-2019-000757
Henry Hendron (instructed by Richard Hendron) for the 5 th Defendant in PT-2017-000104
Hearing dates: 21 st, 22 nd, 23 rd, 26 th, 27 th, 28 th, 29 th and 30 th October, 2 nd November and 14 th December 2020
Approved Judgment
I direct that pursuant to CPR PD 39A para 6.1 no official shorthand note shall be taken of this Judgment and that copies of this version as handed down may be treated as authentic.
DEPUTY Master Bowles
Hartar Singh Sangha (Hartar) died on 3 rd September 2016, in Chandigarh, in the Punjab region of India, aged 72. He had been the owner of very substantial assets in India and in the United Kingdom. These two Claims are concerned with the validity of Hartar's wills and the devolution of his assets, under those wills, or otherwise, as between the members of what I will call his extended family. I will refer to the two Claims as the probate claim and the property claim.
The Claimant, in the probate claim, Jaswinder Kaur Sangha (Jaswinder) was married to Hartar, in Jalandhur, in India in 1992. She was, at that date, 23 years of age. Hartar was, then, 48 years of age. It was an arranged marriage. Hartar and Jaswinder had one child, Harbiksun Singh Sangha (Harbiksun). Harbiksun was born on 1 st March 2001 and is, now, 20 years of age. He is the fourth Defendant in the probate claim but has taken no part in these proceedings. The validity of Hartar's marriage to Jaswinder is in issue in these proceedings, but, by agreement of the parties, is not to be the subject of a determination in this trial.
The reason why the validity of Hartar's marriage to Jaswinder is in issue is that for many years Hartar held himself out as being married to Diljit Kaur Sangha (Diljit), by whom Hartar has had two children, Sundeep Singh Sangha (Sundeep) and Mandi Vanderpuye (Mandi), who are, respectively, the second and third Defendants in the probate claim. Diljit was born in 1942 and died in March 2018, aged 75. Diljit was, initially the first Defendant in the probate claim. Following her death and by my order of 5 th April 2018, the probate claim has been carried on against her estate, as first Defendant, and Sundeep has been appointed to represent her estate.
Sundeep and Mandi and Diljit's estate all contend that Diljit was lawfully married to Hartar, in October 1962, in an arranged Sikh wedding ceremony in the Punjab. If that be right, then, since this marriage has never been dissolved, the necessary consequence would be that Jaswinder's purported marriage to Hartar was never valid. The potential relevance of the validity, or otherwise, of these marriages will appear later in this judgment.
Sundeep was born in October 1969 and Mandi in April 1972. They were both born in the United Kingdom. Hartar had come to the United Kingdom in 1963 and Dijit had joined him, as his spouse, in 1965. After a period in rented accommodation, Hartar purchased a property at 17 Empress Avenue, in Ilford. That property was retained as the family home for Hartar, Diljit, Sundeep and Mandi until 1990, when they moved to 142 Hainault Road, in Chigwell. Hartar had purchased the Hainault Road plot in 1983 and had, over time, constructed a family home on that site.
At some point, prior to 1990, Hartar's sister, Jagpal Kaur Sangha (Jagpal), the fifth Defendant, had come to live with Hartar, Diljit, Sundeep and Mandi at Empress Avenue, while studying for a PhD in Economic Geography, in London. Jagpal moved with the rest of the family to Hainault Road in 1990.
Diljit continued to live at Hainault Road for the rest of her life. Mandi, however, moved out shortly before her nineteenth birthday, having fallen out with her father over her choice of partner. That estrangement continued until 2002, when Mandi contacted Hartar and when, according to Mandi's uncontested evidence, their relationship was restored.
In 1991, Diljit and Jagpal fell out and Diljit asked Jagpal to leave. Sundeep's evidence, upon which much of the current summary is based and which evidence I very substantially accept, is that Diljit believed that the very close relationship which had developed between Jagpal and Hartar was an unhealthy one.
In the event, it would appear that this was the catalyst for the breakdown of the relationship between Hartar and Diljit. When Jagpal left Hainault Road, Hartar left as well. They returned to India and both went to live in Chandigarh.
By the date that Hartar left the United Kingdom, in 1991, he had had considerable business success. Initially, he operated a building firm and builders' merchants H S Sangha Ltd, from a property at 656–658 Romford Road, in Manor Park. From 1972, however, his business had been run through the medium of a different company, SBM Warehouse Ltd (SBM), the shareholding in which was held jointly by Hartar and Diljit. That business first traded from the Romford Road address, but, thereafter, expanded into a considerable number of premises.
By 1988, its principal business was that of a bathroom equipment retailer, bathroom wholesale distributor, importer and manufacturer. The company had premises at 656–666 Romford Road, Manor Park, together with locations in Brentford, Finchley and Swiss Cottage. A large distribution centre at Hartmann Road, Silvertown was, subsequently transferred to 4–28 Varcoe Road Southwark (Varcoe Road). In 1990, Hartar purchased further premises at 103–107 Windmill Road, in Brentford. That property had been purchased in a dilapidated state, but, subsequently, on renovation, consisted of eighteen residential units (bedsitters), on the upper floors and a bathroom/plumbing shop, run by SBM, on the ground floor.
Sundeep first worked with/for Hartar at SBM. He began working in what was, in effect, the family business from the age of ten. He would run errands at weekends and in the evening during school term and work in the business during school holidays. Sundeep had aspirations to attend university. His evidence, at trial, however, which I accept, is that, even before taking A levels, he was placed under considerable pressure by Hartar to abandon those aspirations and to come to work full-time in the business. In the result, following poor A level results, which Sundeep puts down to the fact that he was, already, devoting too much time to his work in the business, and despite, as I understand it, commencing, but not completing, courses to improve his results, Sundeep, from 1988, began to work full-time for SBM. Sundeep's evidence, which, again, I accept, is that, to persuade Sundeep to come into the business, Hartar promised that Sundeep would succeed to the business and would come to own and run the businesses for his own benefit and that of his mother and sister.
As will appear later in this judgment, this promise, by Hartar, and other like promises, said to have been made, over the years, to Sundeep by his father, in respect of Hartar's business and properties, is at the heart of the property claim, whereby Sundeep asserts that he is entitled, by the application of principles of proprietary estoppel, to the beneficial ownership of some half dozen properties, owned, or jointly owned, by Hartar and Jaswinder, during Hartar's lifetime, and now allegedly vested in Jaswinder by survivorship.
Sundeep's work, in and for SBM, embraced a multiplicity of activities, ranging from collecting rent from the premises owned by Hartar/SBM, to, as he put it, running errands, to working as a sales person in the company's branches, at, variously, Romford Road, Varcoe Road, Brentford and, from 1990, Windmill Road. He worked long hours with, he says, modest payment. His understanding, from his father, was, always, that this was the family business, which would one day pass to him.
From 1991, when Hartar and Jagpal left Hainault Road and moved to India, basing themselves in Chandigarh, Sundeep was left with the de facto management of SBM. Sundeep's evidence, which I accept, is that Hartar had not left SBM in good condition. A part of its problems had been that Hartar had entered into a transaction with an organisation called Wrekin Electricals giving rise to a liability of circa £100,000. Monies, to the tune of circa £140,000 had also been spent upon a computer system. The business was under invested and over stretched. National Insurance, PAYE and tax were unpaid and creditors were chasing. As time progressed and as Hartar's business activities in India grew, monies were, it seems, extracted from SBM and transferred to India to support those activities.
In the result, Sundeep, still in his early twenties, was left with the management of what was, eventually, a failing business and to confront, with minimal experience, the familiar problems associated with such a business. Throughout this period, Sundeep remained, as I understand it, in close contact with his father, who now divided his time between England and India and who continued to reassure Sundeep that his efforts would ultimately be rewarded by the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Re Sangha, Sangha v Sangha
...tried at the same time. He set out his findings of fact in a lengthy, careful and detailed judgment handed down on 16 June 2021 at [2021] EWHC 1599 (Ch). This deals with a large number of factual and legal issues. What follows is only a brief summary, but sufficient to explain the question......
-
Beverley Francis Wilson v Angella Rose-Marie Spence
...same. That is one of the formal requirements for proof of a will: Face v Cunningham [2020] EWHC 3119 (Ch) at [46]; Sangha v Sangha [2021] EWHC 1599 (Ch) at [130–131]. (3) There is a rebuttable presumption of due execution (i.e. in favour of the formal validity of a will) where, as in this ......
-
Alexander David Niven And Another Against Irene Roberta Hunter-forbes Niven
...made to recent decisions south of the border, including Face v Cunningham [2020] EWHC 3119 (Ch) at paragraph 46 and Sangha v Sangha [2021] EWHC 1599 (Ch) at paragraphs 130-132. If there is a burden on David Niven and his sister, it is only in respect of the claim that the signature is not t......
-
Table of Cases
...Bank Ltd [1981] Ch 167, [1980] 3 WLR 748, [1980] 3 All ER 532, 124 Sol Jo 813, ChD 126, 130, 187 Sangha v Sangha and Others [2021] EWHC 1599 (Ch), [2021] 6 WLUK 213 96, 105 Savory’s Goods, Re (1851) 15 Jur 1042, 18 LTOS 280 27 Scammell v Farmer [2008] EWHC 1100 (Ch), [2008] WTLR 1261, [2008......
-
Revocation of a Will
...is required, provided it is made clear that the testator/testatrix intends to revoke the previous will. In Sangha v Sangha and Others [2021] EWHC 1599 (Ch), the words used by the testator, ‘This is my last and final will and all other such documents stand cancelled’ were held as a matter of......
-
Forgery
...Guide to Probate Disputes party propounding the will. Applying this view, Deputy Master Bowles in Sangha v Sangha and Others [2021] EWHC 1599 (Ch) at [131] stated: A party propounding a will must prove that the will propounded is in writing, signed by the testator and duly witnessed. A fabr......