Diljit Kaur Sangha’s passing in late 2016 has caused a lengthy legal battle over his large estate. He made four wills in 1979, 2003, 2007 and 2016, the last of which included a disputed revocation clause. The contents of these wills complicated matters further due to him having two wives, although when, and if he was married to his first wife, is not clear.
Sangha’s estate involves numerous properties in the UK and India and is worth an estimated £35 million. His first will left all his properties to his first wife and two children, but the 2007 will left all his properties to his second wife and stated the first wife would receive none of his properties.
The last will in 2016 only dealt with his property in India which was split between his first and second wife and children. However, his second wife Jaswinder challenged this will, and the revocation clause inserted into it. The matter went to the England and Wales High Court (EWHC).
In court Jaswinder claimed the 2016 will was forged, however, Deputy Master Bowles adjudged in 2021 that the will was genuine. The matter, therefore, became whether the revocation clause which stated “this is my last and final will and all such previous documents stand cancelled” referred to the three previous wills, or the wills that dealt with Sangha’s property in India.
It was decided that the revocation clause should involve all of the previous wills. This meant both English and Indian estates were affected. The second wife, Jaswinder, contested this, arguing the 2016 will was not meant to influence the 2007 will, stating they should be treated separately.
The case went to appeal and was handled by Simon Gleeson who acted as Deputy High Court Judge. He found that the 2016 will should not apply to Sangha’s English property as the document made no reference to these assets. He continued:
“The 2016 will is an entirely Indian document, in that it was drafted in India, with the assistance of an Indian lawyer, and relates exclusively to property in India.
The terms of the document itself provide no indication at all that the document was intended to have any application at all outside the specific estate with which it dealt.”
In addition to this, Gleeson also found that the 2016 will may well have been referring to the 2003 will which referenced the Indian estates, and so the revocation clause was judged to have been revoking this will.
Therefore, Gleeson’s findings overruled Bowles’ ruling. The 2007 will was allowed to be carried out, however, the marital status of his first wife, Diljit Sangha, who died during the legal proceedings, is still yet to be decided as the date of the wedding is unclear and there appears to be no records of a divorce between the two (Sangha v Estate of Diljit Kaur Sangha, 2022 EWHC 2157 Ch).
