Another Example Of British Legal System Working Against Sikhs

[genie]

Daughter overturns Sikh father's will after he leaves majority of £870,000 estate to her brothers

By LOUISE BOYLE

Last updated at 12:29 PM on 8th September 2011

The daughter of a Sikh pensioner who left only a fraction of his £870,000 will to her, and the majority of the fortune to his sons, has won a legal battle to declare the document invalid.

Ranjit Singh died in his 70s in March 2009 leaving almost his entire estate to his three sons Jarnail, Ajaib and Jugdeep Balvinder.

Mr Singh, of Crawley, West Sussex, signed the will in 1999. Two of his daughters - including Balvinder Kaur Ahluwalia, who took the case to the High Court - received £20,000 each, while a third sister got nothing.

Family feud: Balvinder Kaur Ahluwalia, of Crawley, West Sussex, had her father's will declared invalid after he left most of his £870,000 estate to her three brothers

After her father's death, Mrs Ahluwalia, a 42-year-old shipping solicitor, became locked in a legal battle over the will with her three brothers.

Mr Singh was brought up in a poor Punjabi village but forged a successful career with British Bakeries after moving to the UK.

He lived frugally throughout his life and at the time of his death, his estate was valued at £872,890.

During a costly four-day hearing, Mrs Ahluwalia challenged the will on grounds that the two witnesses to the document were not both present at the same time to see Mr Singh sign it.

The will was declared invalid and the estate will now be divided equally between Mr Singh's six children.

Jarnail Singh, who is also solicitor, had defended his father's will. He argued that in line with Sikh tradition, the eldest sons assume the main role and daughters are treated as part of their husband's family and provided for through large wedding dowries.

In his verdict, Judge Mark Cawson QC said there was 'the strongest evidence' that the legal formalities had not been complied with.

Central to the judge's ruling was the evidence of one witness to the will, Mr Singh's 78-year-old next-door neighbour, Maurice Grantham.

Mr Grantham was 'adamant' that he and the other witness were not present at the same time when Mr Singh signed.

Judge Cawson said: 'I am conscious, and have kept fully in mind, that the effect of this judgment is to frustrate Mr Singh's testamentary intentions, and the result will be there is an intestacy as there is no later will.

Of Mrs Ahluwalia who brought the case, the judge added: 'I gained the impression that the present litigation is very much a mission on her part to correct what she perceives to be injustice and, sadly, there is plainly no love lost between her and the brothers.'

Read more: http://www.dailymail...l#ixzz1XN5OHYrN

[genie]

In Sikh and south asian culture and traditions the majority of the will money is given to the sons of the family so that they can look after the family and that lineage is continued whereas the daughters who married into inlaws families usually are given nothing or very little for a good reason (due to huge dowary expenses at their weddings and them becoming part of the other family to continue their lineage). This case shows that some stupid women of Sikh origin are trying to ruin the Sikh community our culture , traditions and the British legal system is aiding them. These daft women in this case dont even realise that most of the money they will now share will be given to the lawyers fee's.

We really have to take a stand because this has huge implications for Sikhs and non-sikhs alike who want to leave their money when they die to people they wish to in their will without hindrance from the state.

[JasSinghKhalsa]

If the subject would have belonged to any other religion, the decision would had been the same. Where is it actually the religious bias angle over here?

[genie]

The bias is an attempt to interfere in a deceased Sikhs man last will and testimont without considering all the cultural and religious factors behind the implications of this judgement.

"The will was declared invalid and the estate will now be divided equally between Mr Singh's six children.

Jarnail Singh, who is also solicitor, had defended his father's will. He argued that in line with Sikh tradition, the eldest sons assume the main role and daughters are treated as part of their husband's family and provided for through large wedding dowries."

What this means is that because so called witnesses can change their statements of not bearing witness to the will that it can become invalid, and for this family it means the house will be divide maybe they have to relocate due to this judgement. Maybe their elderly mother or other relatives will also have to move out in order these two married daughters (who have no legal right under Sikh and south asian cultural norms) to have the estate or money divided equally.

[Balait_da_Sher]

British legal system did not go out and find this family. The family found the court and as such the court has to make a decision based on the law of the land. Personally, I think sons and daughters should be given equal part in the estate. It is not fair that women do not have equal rights to their brothers when it comes to parents estate especially it is the daughters who end up taking care of the parents most of the time.

[genie]

If i had daughters I would give the equal share too however if they got married and alot of money was spent on their dowry and wedding you have to take and bear that in mind when you making a will. Raising a daughter until she works for herself far exceeds to that of raising a son of similar condition, especially in the western world where you have issues of jewellery, menstruation pads, makeup, beauty products/ treatments, fashion, etc

Your sons are going to carry on your surname and your genes your daughter will be married off to anothers familiy who have a duty to treat her as their own daughter and give her what she requires.

[gurdssingh]

I feel all children of a parent should be treated equally regardless of anything. However, the issue I have is any person or couple can decide to leave their assets to anyone who they want too. It could be equally, inequally, onlyto 1 sibling or to none and given to a charity or anyone else. Why is their a need for a child to say and expect it is their god given right to DEMAND a share. If the parents don't want to give it to you well you don't desrve it. Regardless of how well you treated them.

Why take it to court just over money the person ruined the realtion with siblings and bought the family look in a bad light. If she thoght she was unfairly treated (which you can say she was, if she had done no wrong) she should have spoken to her siblings. Also they should have sorted it out amongst themselves. I mean what type of brother would not want to help his sister out financially.

[Jonny101]

Who ever takes care of the parents deserve the lion's share of the estate. But the daughter in this case should take some points under consideration before she proceeded.

-Firstly, in traditional Punjabi and Indian families the daughter and her husband & InLaws get a lot during the wedding which is one of the main reasons why daughters do not get equal inheritance as the sons.

-Secondly, as per tradition what the daughter earns she keeps. The father and brother never ask her to contribute within the family expenses while the son is expected to start contributing to the family expenses(included sister's wedding!) and house hold bills.

So taking these two points into consideration it seems unfair for a daughter to then demand an equal share. But I have seen cases where the daughter takes care of the parents because lousy sons do not feel it is their duty to take care of their parents at old age, and in that case in my opinion she deserves not just equal but more than all the brothers who did not take care of the parents.

[West London Singh]

Hi guys. Just passing thru so thought I'd quickly share my thoughts on this issue. Firstly, this story is not "another example of the british legal system working against the sikhs". Firstly because, without sounding too semantic, there is no such thing as a 'british legal system'. You have a choice of either the English legal system or the Scottish legal system. Both completely different, what with the English common law tradition and the Scottish system which is similar to the French Civil law tradition....given the fact that Scotland has always had deeper historical ties with France than it had with England. However, more aptly though, if you wanted to look for a case which showed the English legal system working against the Sikhs you need look no further back than a few months re the case of "Chatwal v Wandsworth Borough Council" (2011). This case is pretty relevant at the moment seeing how international attention and praise has been heaped upon Dr Inderjit Singh (the self appointed spokesperson of every sikh in the uk)on his appointment this week to the House of Lords. The case involved an Amritdhari office worker, working for the london borough of wandsworth. He was told that it was part of his 'office' duties to handle and clean other staff members meat producs in the communal fridge. He stated that he couldn't do so on religious grounds. The employers, however, called on Dr Inderjit Singh as their star witness. He stated that the amritdharis are just a 'sect' of sikhs and there was nothing in sikhism stopping Mr Chatwal from handling meat. So.....the sikh lost on sikh principles because of Dr Inderjit Singh's interpretation of sikhism. This case will have far reaching consequences on future cases involving amritdharis.

Also.......

Firstly, in traditional Punjabi and Indian families the daughter and her husband & InLaws get a lot during the wedding which is one of the main reasons why daughters do not get equal inheritance as the sons.

The year is 2011, my friend. The dowry system stopped among sikhs a generation ago. A sikh's daughter is not a troublesome animal that he should pay for someone to take off his hands. No money should change hands.....no gifts should change hands....no jewellery should change hands. You may also be interested to know that among the american and Canadian sikhs it is actually the boys side who bear the largest expense because it is them that organise and pay for the receptions. Quite rightly too in my opinion. For it is they who are gaining the most. In this case there seems to be a sense of poetic justice...in reverse. Mrs Alhuwalia's parents and brothers paid for her to go to college and qualify as a solicitor...And then, when she qualifies, she uses her legal expertise to take them to the cleaners. Moral of the story then ? Don't let your daughter or sister get an education. Keep her locked up in the kitchen and marry her off as soon as she's done her gcse's. Nah...only kidding :cool2:

[genie]

Hi guys. Just passing thru so thought I'd quickly share my thoughts on this issue. Firstly, this story is not "another example of the british legal system working against the sikhs". Firstly because, without sounding too semantic, there is no such thing as a 'british legal system'. You have a choice of either the English legal system or the Scottish legal system. Both completely different, what with the English common law tradition and the Scottish system which is similar to the French Civil law tradition....given the fact that Scotland has always had deeper historical ties with France than it had with England. However, more aptly though, if you wanted to look for a case which showed the English legal system working against the Sikhs you need look no further back than a few months re the case of "Chatwal v Wandsworth Borough Council" (2011). This case is pretty relevant at the moment seeing how international attention and praise has been heaped upon Dr Inderjit Singh (the self appointed spokesperson of every sikh in the uk)on his appointment this week to the House of Lords. The case involved an Amritdhari office worker, working for the london borough of wandsworth. He was told that it was part of his 'office' duties to handle and clean other staff members meat producs in the communal fridge. He stated that he couldn't do so on religious grounds. The employers, however, called on Dr Inderjit Singh as their star witness. He stated that the amritdharis are just a 'sect' of sikhs and there was nothing in sikhism stopping Mr Chatwal from handling meat. So.....the sikh lost on sikh principles because of Dr Inderjit Singh's interpretation of sikhism. This case will have far reaching consequences on future cases involving amritdharis.

Also.......

The year is 2011, my friend. The dowry system stopped among sikhs a generation ago. A sikh's daughter is not a troublesome animal that he should pay for someone to take off his hands. No money should change hands.....no gifts should change hands....no jewellery should change hands. You may also be interested to know that among the american and Canadian sikhs it is actually the boys side who bear the largest expense because it is them that organise and pay for the receptions. Quite rightly too in my opinion. For it is they who are gaining the most. In this case there seems to be a sense of poetic justice...in reverse. Mrs Alhuwalia's parents and brothers paid for her to go to college and qualify as a solicitor...And then, when she qualifies, she uses her legal expertise to take them to the cleaners. Moral of the story then ? Don't let your daughter or sister get an education. Keep her locked up in the kitchen and marry her off as soon as she's done her gcse's. Nah...only kidding :cool2:

Dr Inderjit Singh does have a point in that case that you highlighted. If handling meat as and when required if it stated on the job duties spec when he signed the contract for employment then he was in the wrong. Handling meat is based upon his own religious and moral grounds not on Sikhi's views as this issue is not clear cut. Gurbani gives philosophical advice and guidance whether one should eat meat or not. So its a personal choice what a Sikh does in regards to meat. A Sikh being different to a Khalsa (amritdhari Sikh). So when the complexities are all added together we can see why the judges are coming to conclusion on things out of their remit, they are not scholars of theology so should be advised to stay out of such matters.

As for dowries, though the practise is frowned upon in the west, a significant population of Sikhs and other cultures of the world still value this time honoured practise of giving ones daughter the best start in life with her in laws. I would never insist upon a dowry if i were to have a daughter in law, however for some families taking on a daughter in law in their family home can be addition burden on financial resources and space if she is not able to work. You have to look at the wider implications of such judgements and why such practises are in place and the financial hard times that a family may come under especially in recessions or bad economies.