Tajleena Islam v Sultana Jahan Islam & Ors

Tajleena Islam v Sultana Jahan Islam & Ors

The court found that the trust and property documents were not shams as there was no common intention to mislead; the 2008 Fellows Court TR1 was a forgery and invalid; the 2016 Deeds and August 2006 Deed were not procured by undue influence and are valid; the 2017 TR1s were procured by undue influence and are set aside; Tajleena Islam did not contribute financially to the Properties but was intended to benefit as a matter of inheritance and family arrangement.

Parties
Claimant: Tajleena Islam; First Defendant: Sultana Jahan Islam; Second Defendant: Rahit Islam; Third Defendant (estate Representative): Sayed Zaynal Abedin
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
05 August 2024
Procedural Posture
Civil Chancery (property/trusts) / Trial Judgment
Outcome
Claim allowed in part; counterclaim dismissed in part; 2008 Fellows Court TR1 declared invalid; 2017 TR1s set aside for undue influence; allegations of sham and undue influence (re: 2006 and 2016 Deeds) dismissed.
Legal Topics
Sham Trusts, Forgery, Undue Influence, Beneficial Ownership, Illegality, Inheritance, Rectification
Property Law Trusts Law Equity Sham Trusts Forgery Undue Influence Beneficial Ownership Illegality +2 more

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 5 Authorities cited 23 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 12
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Tajleena Islam

Claimant

Sultana Jahan Islam

First Defendant

Rahit Islam

Second Defendant

Sayed Zaynal Abedin

Third Defendant (estate Representative)

Procedural Posture

Civil Chancery (property/trusts) / Trial Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether trust and property documents were shams to conceal assets from creditors
  2. 2 Whether Tajleena Islam's signatures on property documents were forged
  3. 3 Whether certain deeds and transfers were procured by undue influence

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the trust and property documents were not shams as there was no common intention to mislead; the 2008 Fellows Court TR1 was a forgery and invalid; the 2016 Deeds and August 2006 Deed were not procured by undue influence and are valid; the 2017 TR1s were procured by undue influence and are set aside; Tajleena Islam did not contribute financially to the Properties but was intended to benefit as a matter of inheritance and family arrangement.

Court Disposition

Claim allowed in part; counterclaim dismissed in part; 2008 Fellows Court TR1 declared invalid; 2017 TR1s set aside for undue influence; allegations of sham and undue influence (re: 2006 and 2016 Deeds) dismissed.

Orders

  • 2008 Fellows Court TR1 declared invalid as a forgery
  • 2017 TR1s set aside for undue influence