• 
  

  Happier days: Jasminder Singh and Bal Mohinder Singh; (above) Hotel Radisson Edwardian

The 469-page volume of Hindu Family Law as Administered in British India published by W. Thacker & Company in London was a large presence in court 23 at the Rolls Building of the Royal Courts of Justice. Written by Sir Ernest John Trevelyan, a judge of the High Court of Calcutta in 1908, the tome has become one of the focal points of reference in a dispute over a multi-million pound hotel empire in London. At stake is property and assets worth nearly 800 million.

In what is seen as an 'unusual' case by legal experts, Bal Mohinder Singh, 86, is suing son Jasminder Singh, 62, for excluding him from the business empire that he had built and placed in trust in his son's name. From a humble post office that the family acquired in 1974, the Singh family empire now includes a chain of 14 luxury hotels including the elegant Mayfair hotel and the Radisson Edwardian in Heathrow. The nub of the case rests on the principle of Hindu joint family law where all members live together in the same house and where the family wealth and property is held under a common trust for the male members of the family.

According to Bal Mohinder Singh, he had put all the family property and assets in the name of his eldest son Jasminder on the understanding that it was part of a constructive trust arising from the Hindu joint family system. He had made his educated son the 'Karta', and all the property was held jointly by them with maintenance rights for the female members, namely, Jasminder's mother and sister.

The principle of Mitakshara — as laid down in Hindu law in the seminal text Yajnavalkya by the 11th century thinker Vijnaneswara Jogi — was used all over India during British rule, except in Bengal which was covered by the Dayabhaga school. According to Trevelyan, 'the decision of English courts played a part in defining and crystallising Hindu law.' Mitakshara was used regularly in British India in cases regarding inheritance.

So how was it that the principle of Mitakshara — which sent the British media scurrying to research the word online — was being allowed to be brought up in a British court in the 21st century, especially since the original Hindu law had itself gone through changes in India over the decades?

'It is not the first time that Hindu law has been brought up in the English courts,' Richard Slade of Richard Slade and Company of Gray's Inn, London, solicitor for Bal Mohinder Singh, told The Telegraph. 'For over a 100 years down to 1948, English judges and barristers were thoroughly familiar with Hindu law because there were literally thousands of appeals to the Privy Council from the courts of India over that period and all the judges and leading lawyers took part in them.

'However, it is not being suggested in this case that Hindu law applies directly in England. Rather, our case is that a Hindu family in England who live as a joint Hindu family... will find that they can in fact do so under the modern English principles which we call 'common intention constructive trusts'.'

Following a preliminary hearing, the courts allowed both parties to consult experts on the Hindu joint family system and the principles of Mitakshara as applicable to a family of Sikh origin. Bal Mohinder Singh consulted Dr Werner Menski, professor of south Asian law at the London School of Oriental and African Studies, and Jasminder consulted Arun Mohan, a senior advocate of the Supreme Court in Delhi.

The high-profile case which has been covered extensively in the British media has raised a few eyebrows in the legal world. 'The ancient doctrine of Mitakshara is not a concept known to English law. I would be very surprised if the court gives effect to it. Sadly for Mr Singh senior, I suspect that its introduction in these proceedings says more about the weakness of his case than it does about the availability of the remedy,' said David Golten, senior partner in city law firm Wedlake Bell. The nearest English law equivalent to Mitakshara is a resulting or constructive trust. It is highly unusual for a father to sue his son, as the reverse is usually the case.

As proceedings started on Tuesday, Jasminder Singh attended the court listening wearily to the complicated legal arguments about previous cases assigned under the Hindu family law. His father stayed away, pleading ill health. Ironically, three generations of the family still live in Tetworth House, a seven-bedroom house in Ascot, Berkshire, and their relationship was described by a spokesman for Bal Mohinder Singh as 'cordial'.

Singh senior even put out a statement before the proceedings began, saying he loved his son and would not hear any ill against him and that he was only fighting for what was rightfully his.

That he claimed, was one-third of the family property and assets as all the money in the business had been put in by him. In court, his counsel, John McDonnell Q.C., claimed that 'not a penny piece was put in other than by the father' though he admitted that it had grown through skilful management under his son, Jasminder.

Though the business was run by the father along with his two sons, Jasminder and Herinder, the relationship turned sour in 2010 when Jasminder compulsorily retired his father and removed his name as a director of the company. It was then that Bal Mohinder Singh and his wife wrote to Jasminder that the time had come to divide the property and assets three ways. On 12 November 2010, Jasminder replied that he did not agree with their letter and his father decided to take him to court.

Grievances against his son included the allegation that he had refused to install a stair-lift for his mother, Satwant Kaur Singh and had also withdrawn the use of her driver and other staff. 'Both I and his mother are deeply ashamed that Jasminder should publicly renounce his cultural heritage and the mutual rights and obligations in which he was brought up,' said Bal Mohinder Singh.

The case is likely to drag on for several days in court 23. Jasminder Singh left the court early on day two of the trial, his counsel appealing that he 'had a business to run.' He is worth an estimated 415 million and ranks 193 in The Sunday Times Rich List.

Would it be a landmark judgment if his client won, prompting perhaps other cases of inheritance based on Mitakshara? 'Yes, it definitely would,' Richard Slade replied without hesitation. 'We believe that there are a very large number of Hindu families in England, some of them very prominent in the business world, who would like to manage their affairs as a Hindu undivided family but are under the impression that that is not possible in England. We hope that this case will establish that Hindus in England may live according to the undivided family system if they wish to do so.'

Justice Sir William Blackburn's judgment will be eagerly awaited.