The five younger children of a multimillionaire curry tycoon have won a court battle with their older brother after he tried to claim their late father’s entire £4.6m fortune.
Abdul Khan, who died in 2008 at the age of 67, started out as a humble dishwasher in a West End hotel but went on to carve out a fortune in the restaurant business before investing in a string of London properties.
Mr Khan left no will and 16 years after his death his six offspring fought a costly High Court dispute over who should own his four properties, which are now worth millions.
Oldest sibling, Muhammed Iftekhar Khan, 49, insisted he should inherit everything in line with his father’s wishes that he should benefit as his oldest son. But his brothers and sisters insisted their father wanted the family fortune to be shared.
After a lengthy trial, Deputy Judge Saira Salimi ruled in favour of the five siblings, deciding that the properties were acquired with the ‘common intention’ that all the siblings should benefit.
The court heard that, rising from washing dishes after coming to the UK, Mr Khan had sweated and saved over the years, becoming a successful chef and eventually running a flourishing restaurant, the Clapham Tandoori, on Clapham Common.
He used profits from his successful curry house to buy real estate in Tooting Bec, Norbury, West Norwood and Upper Norwood, currently worth around £4.6million.
The respective houses are in Stapleton Road, Tooting Bec; Norbury Crescent, Norbury; Ullswater Road, West Norwood; and Essex Grove, Upper Norwood.
The case was brought to court by siblings Ahmed, 43, Sarwar, 42, Shalima, 45, Farhana, 46, and Jennifer Khan, 44, who argued that ‘it was always his intention that the beneficial ownership of the properties should be shared between his children,’ explained the judge.
They wanted Judge Salimi’s confirmation that three of the properties are held on trust for the three sons in equal shares and that the fourth property in Essex Grove, Upper Norwood, is held on trust for Abdul’s three daughters.
They relied on what they said was a binding deal brokered at a ‘family meeting’ in 2004, when it was agreed that each of the three sons would receive a one-third split of the family’s expanding property venture.
On top of that, Ahmed said he did ‘very extensive’ work on some of the family properties – often for no reward – at a time when he was also holding down a job in finance.
But Muhammed flatly disputed their claim and said he had helped bail out both his father and his brother, Ahmed, when they were struggling financially.
The judge also explained: ‘In essence his case is that Mr Khan always intended that he, as the eldest son, should be the beneficial owner of the properties, and that the various transactions were all carried out with that end in view.
‘He denies that any of the claimants have any entitlement to the properties.’
The siblings’ barrister, Mr East, said their father had frowned on his eldest son having ‘multiple children out of wedlock,’ although their relationship later improved when Muhammed began accepting his responsibilities and took on a more pivotal role in the family property business.
From the witness box, Ahmed said Muhammed had fallen into their father’s ‘bad books’ over a ten-year stretch when he was alienated from his parents.
Cross-examining, Muhammed’s barrister Simon Lane suggested that his client had become his parents’ favourite and was a key figure in the family setup, while Ahmed was ‘frozen out of the conversation about what would happen to these properties’.
‘I disagree, he trusted each and every one of us,’ replied Ahmed.
He also denied resenting Muhammed for muscling him out of his role in the business or that he saw him as a ‘bit of a cuckoo’ in the nest.
Focusing on how the property portfolio was built up, Judge Salimi said Muhammed had acted ‘on the basis of a shared family assumption that Essex Grove was held for Mr Khan during his lifetime and thereafter for his daughters’.
There was a clear ‘common intention’ that the property should be held ‘on trust’ for Mr Khan during his lifetime, and subsequently for his daughters.
Mr Khan had also acquired the other three properties with the aim of benefiting his three sons, the judge ruled.
The five siblings argued that the Norbury Crescent property was bought with a view to creating a nursery business for Mr Khan and the judge ruled that he ‘directed the purchase for his own benefit during his lifetime and thereafter for the benefit of his sons’.
At the end of her ruling, Judge Salimi agreed to make the order for sale on each of the properties asked for by the five younger siblings.