Analysis
The Claimant (‘Rakesh’) sought to pronounce against the only will made by his late mother, Urmila Rani Gupta (‘the Will’). The Defendants were his two siblings (‘Naresh’ and ‘Sashi’), their children and his own children. The only party actively defending the claim was Naresh – he also brought a Part 20 Claim to appoint an independent administrator of the estate. The Part 20 Claim was not opposed.
The Deceased and her husband Laxmi made mirror wills in November 1998. Laxmi died before the Deceased, so the effect of the Will was that it gave Sashi and each grandchild a small pecuniary legacy, made a number of significant gifts to Naresh (including the family home), and left the residue to Naresh and Rakesh in equal shares.
In 2004 the Deceased also executed a will relating to her Indian estate which was not challenged in these proceedings. This divided her immovable property into three parts, each of which was given to one of her children, and divided her liquid assets as follows: 50% to Naresh, 40% to Rakesh and 10% to Sashi.
Rakesh claimed that the Will was invalid due to his mother having a lack of knowledge and approval of its contents. He argued that there were four reasons to excite the suspicions of the court in this respect:
(i) Laxmi’s dominance over his wife;
(ii) The Deceased’s inability to comprehend written English;
(iii) The Deceased’s mental and physical conditions; and
(iv) The lack of any good reason why the Deceased would wish to create a disparity in the benefits received by her three children.
There was also a dispute over how one of the clauses of the Will ought to be interpreted. The court was not asked to resolve this question of construction but considered whether this meant that the Deceased lacked knowledge and approval of the contents of the Will.
Held:
1) The claim failed. There were no suspicious circumstances concerning the execution of the will, and the court was satisfied that the testator knew and approved of its contents.
2) A testator’s lack of understanding of the legal effect of their will does not mean that they did not know and approve of its contents. It is sufficient if a solicitor has explained the meaning of the will to them, even if the solicitor is mistaken.
3) It was clear that the Deceased’s husband exerted a degree of influence over her, but they generally had a close and loving relationship. The fact that one partner is willing to go along with the wishes of another is not in itself a suspicious circumstance – on the contrary, it provides an explanation for the terms of the Will.
JUDGMENT HoIlander QC Introduction [1] By this claim the claimant (‘Rakesh’) seeks to pronounce against the last will dated 20 November 1998 (‘the Will’) of the late Urmila Rani Gupta (“Urmila”) for want of knowledge and approval. [2] Laxmi Nath Gupta (‘Laxmi’) was born on 24 May 1924 and died on 6 April 2009. He …Continue reading "Gupta v Gupta & ors [2019] WTLR 575"