In this case, a claim was brought by Jaswinder Sangha, the ‘widow’ of the deceased Hartar Sangha. Jaswinder sought to contend that a 2007 Will created by Hartar leaving his entire English and Indian estates worth in excess of £35 million to her, was Hartar’s last valid Will. The Sangha v Sangha trial saw numerous Will forgery allegations. Hartar was alleged to have left four Wills whose authenticity, validity and construction were challenged by his remaining family members.

Hartar had been married to Diljit Sangha with whom he shared two children, Sundeep Sangha and Mandi Vanderpuye. He was also survived by his sister, Jagpal Sangha. The validity of Hartar’s marriage to Jaswinder remains a live issue, as the marriage to Diljit had never ended by divorce proceedings.

The Probate claim

The defendants to Jaswinder’s probate claim- Sundeep, Mandi and Diljit’s estate disputed the validity of the 2007 Will. The deceased’s family alleged that the Will had been concocted by Jaswinder and the entirety of the evidence as to the Wills creation and execution was untrue, and therefore argued that the 2007 Will was invalid due to forgery or alternatively lack of execution. The deceased’s family contested that a Will made by Hartar in 1979 was his last valid Will relation to his English estate, and a 2003 Will related only to Hartar’s Indian estate.

During proceedings Jagpal produced an additional Will executed in 2016 before Hartar’s death. This Will revoked all previous Wills and left Hartar’s Indian estate to Diljit and his three children in equal shares. Jaswinder challenged the validity of the 2016 Will on the grounds of forgery, or that the 2016 Wills revocation clause did not revoke the 2007 Will in relation to the English estate. If the 2016 Will was held to be valid, revoking all previous Wills, Hartar’s English estate would pass under the intestacy rules

The Proprietary Estoppel claim

Sundeep Sangha issued a counter claim to Jaswinder’s seeking a declaration that he was the sole beneficial owner of several properties of Hartar’s, based on the doctrine of proprietary estoppel. A claim for proprietary estoppel will be successful where a claimant can demonstrate that they have relied upon a promise made by another, and in doing so, suffered a detriment because of this reliance.

Sundeep claimed that he relied upon promises made to him by Hartar that he would inherit the English estate which, he argued, he relied upon to his detriment by working for the family business. Sundeep asked the High Court to find that his father’s promises had resulted in an equity arising in his favour before the properties had been transferred into the joint names of Hartar and Jaswinder, therefore superseding any interest which Jaswinder purported to have.

High Court’s decision

In relation to the probate claim and allegations of forgery, the High Court found that the 2016 Will was valid and authentic. Deputy Master Bowles relied upon the recent decision in Face v Cunningham [2020] whereby the burden of proof remains with the person seeking to propound the Will to evidence its authenticity. Deputy Master Bowles found Jagpal’s evidence was not invented in relation to the 2016 Will, and no other party had produced sufficient evidence to demonstrate that a forgery had taken place. Therefore, the High Court found that the 2016 Will was valid and revoked all previous Wills, including the 2007 Will which was itself valid. Consequentially, as the 2016 Will was Hartar’s last will and expressly revoked all earlier Wills, it would govern the devolution of his estate. Therefore, the High Court’s decision meant that Hartar’s English estate would be distributed according to the intestacy provisions, benefiting Sundeep, Mandi and Harbiksun, his child with Jaswinder.

The High Court then needed to consider whether Sundeep was the sole beneficial owner of several properties Hartar had owned in joint names with Jaswinder prior to his death. Deputy Master Bowles found that although Hartar had made promises to Sundeep, there was no evidence that Sundeep had relied upon these promises to his detriment. The High Court also took the view that Sundeep had received enough from Hartar during his lifetime to satisfy any equity which had arisen. Therefore, the High Court rejected the proprietary estoppel claim.

It is understood that the validity of the marriage between Jaswinder and Hartar is currently a live issue. If Jaswinder can establish that she is the surviving spouse of Hartar, she will also be entitled to the English estate under the intestacy rules.