Succession Case

Westlaw UK Delivery Summary

Request made by : SHIBBOLETH IP POOL

Request made on: Monday, 26 September, 2011 at 07:32

EDT

Client ID: ukfederation

Content Type: Westlaw UK

Title : Ark v Kaur

Delivery selection: Current Document

Number of documents delivered: 1

Document(s) e-mailed to: ilas22@gmail.com

Sweet & Maxwell is part of Thomson Reuters. © 2011 Thomson Reuters (Professional)

UK Limited

Ark v Kaur

Chancery Division District Registry (Birmingham)

17 September 2010

Case Analysis

Where Reported [2010] EWHC 2314 (Ch); (2010) 154(36) S.J.L.B. 34; Official Transcript

Case Digest Subject: Succession

Keywords: Execution; Knowledge; Probate; Undue influenceValidity;

Wills

Summary: Where, on the evidence, the deceased had executed a will

in India with the requisite knowledge and approval of its terms, and

without any undue influence, the court pronounced for the will.

Abstract: The claimants sought probate of an alleged will of the

deceased (T). T had been an Indian national who was domiciled in

England, where he had over the years owned a number of shops and

acquired various other properties. He also owned land in India. The

first claimant (X) was T's only son, and the second to fourth claimants

were X's infant sons. The defendants were T's daughters, but only the

third defendant (S) participated in their opposition to the claim. In

November 2005, T was killed in a road traffic accident in his village in

India three days after allegedly executing the contested will. X was with

him in India at that time. Under the terms of the will, X would inherit the

whole of T's estate, and the defendants were left nothing. They would,

together with X, inherit the whole of T's estate (or at least that in

England) if there were an intestacy. S contended that the will was not,

in fact, executed by T, or alternatively that if he had executed it, he had

done so without the requisite knowledge and approval of its terms, or

while subject to undue influence. S submitted that it was inconceivable

that T could have made a will excluding his daughters, as that was

contrary to his previously known affections and intentions, whereas he

had been on bad terms with X. In the further alternative, S alleged that

if the will was valid, on its proper interpretation it disposed only of T's

property in India, leaving his estate in England to pass under the

English rules of intestacy. There was no significant difference between

the parties as to the principles of law to be applied or that the burden of

proof in respect of execution and the issue of knowledge and approval

fell on X as the person propounding the will, whilst any allegation of

undue influence had to proved by the person making it, in this case