Ahluwalia v Singh & Ors

Ahluwalia v Singh & Ors

The court found, on the evidence, that Mr Grantham and Mr Ahluwalia did not witness Mr Singh sign the will in each other's presence, and that the will was not executed in accordance with section 9 of the Wills Act 1837. The evidence of Mr Grantham and the contemporaneous statement of Mr Ahluwalia, corroborated by Balvinder, constituted 'the strongest evidence' sufficient to rebut the presumption of due execution. The will was therefore invalid and probate must be revoked, resulting in intestacy.

Parties
Claimant: Balvinder Kaur Ahluwalia; First Defendant: Jarnail Singh; Second Defendant: Ajaib Singh-Judge; Third Defendant: Jugdeep Ahluwalia; Fourth Defendant: Sukhwinder Kaur; Fifth Defendant: Jaswinder Kaur Walia
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
06 September 2011
Procedural Posture
Probate / Judgment After Trial
Outcome
Probate revoked; will pronounced against; intestacy declared; letters of administration to be granted to a fit and proper independent person (to be determined).
Legal Topics
Due Execution of Wills, Revocation of Probate, Intestacy, Presumption of Due Execution
Succession Probate Due Execution of Wills Revocation of Probate Intestacy Presumption of Due Execution

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Balvinder Kaur Ahluwalia

Claimant

Jarnail Singh

First Defendant

Ajaib Singh-Judge

Second Defendant

Jugdeep Ahluwalia

Third Defendant

Sukhwinder Kaur

Fourth Defendant

Jaswinder Kaur Walia

Fifth Defendant

Procedural Posture

Probate / Judgment After Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the will of Ranjit Singh dated 3 May 1999 was duly executed in accordance with section 9 of the Wills Act 1837
  2. 2 Whether there is 'the strongest evidence' to rebut the presumption of due execution arising from the attestation clause and signatures of the testator and witnesses

Ratio Decidendi

The court found, on the evidence, that Mr Grantham and Mr Ahluwalia did not witness Mr Singh sign the will in each other's presence, and that the will was not executed in accordance with section 9 of the Wills Act 1837. The evidence of Mr Grantham and the contemporaneous statement of Mr Ahluwalia, corroborated by Balvinder, constituted 'the strongest evidence' sufficient to rebut the presumption of due execution. The will was therefore invalid and probate must be revoked, resulting in intestacy.

Court Disposition

Probate revoked; will pronounced against; intestacy declared; letters of administration to be granted to a fit and proper independent person (to be determined).

Orders

  • Probate of the will granted to Jarnail Singh on 12 March 2010 is revoked.
  • The will of Ranjit Singh dated 3 May 1999 is pronounced against and declared invalid.