Inheritance Wars: His Partner Said They Lived Together — His Children Said She Was Only His Tenant

Fiaz Ali Shah had four children. In about 2000 he began a relationship with Srendarjit Kaur Jassal. They lived together at 12 Sussex Close and, although they never married, their relationship became equivalent to marriage.

They separated in 2012. Srendarjit moved out. Later the relationship resumed — but the extent of that resumption became the central factual dispute.

Srendarjit said they were again living together as a couple. Fiaz’s children said she lived elsewhere, at 19 Salt Hill Mansions, as his tenant. The documents appeared to support the children. Srendarjit’s answer was extraordinary: she said the documents were a false paper trail created by her and Fiaz to claim local-authority benefits fraudulently.

The court believed her account.

The relationship in one line

Long-term relationship → separation → disputed reconciliation → partner says “we lived together” → children say “she lived elsewhere” → documents support the children → partner says the documents were a false trail → 1975 Act claim.

The relationship

A couple, four children and two disputed addresses

1. 1

   Fiaz Ali Shah

   Father of four. He died on 24 April 2020 after making his final will in 2018.

2. 2

   Srendarjit Kaur Jassal

   Fiaz’s partner from around 2000. They never married, but their relationship became equivalent to marriage.

3. 3

   Sajad Shah

   Fiaz’s son, executor and sole beneficiary under the 2018 will.

4. 4

   Shabana Shah

   Fiaz’s daughter and co-executor under the 2018 will.

The central factual issue was whether Fiaz and Srendarjit had resumed living together at 12 Sussex Close, or whether she lived at 19 Salt Hill Mansions as his tenant.

The three wills

In August 2006, Fiaz left everything to Srendarjit, describing her as “my wife”. Four months later, a new will described her as “my close friend” and gave her 50% of the sale proceeds of a particular property; residue went to Sajad or, failing him, Shabana.

On 6 December 2018, Fiaz appointed Sajad and Shabana as executors and made Sajad the sole beneficiary. Srendarjit received nothing.

Simplified visual explainer

Three wills, one disappearing entitlement

1. 1

   August 2006 — Srendarjit receives everything

2. 2

   December 2006 — 50% of one property’s sale proceeds

3. 3

   2012 — separation

4. 4

   Relationship later resumes to a disputed extent

5. 5

   6 December 2018 — Sajad receives the estate; Srendarjit receives £0

6. 6

   2021 — qualifying cohabitation found

Death, probate and the claim

Fiaz died on 24 April 2020. Probate was granted on 7 July 2020, with the net estate stated at just under £1.4 million. Srendarjit issued her claim in January 2021, relying principally on section 1(1A) of the 1975 Act.

The documents said she lived elsewhere

Sajad and Shabana accepted that the relationship had resumed to some extent, but denied that Srendarjit had moved back to 12 Sussex Close. They relied on documents connecting her to 19 Salt Hill Mansions.

Srendarjit accepted those documents existed. Her case was that they did not reflect reality because she and Fiaz had created a false trail for benefits claims. At trial it was put to her that even that admission was fabricated because admitting a smaller fraud might assist a much larger inheritance claim. Deputy Master Marsh rejected that contention.

This was an admission and a civil finding of benefits fraud. This article does not suggest that Srendarjit was criminally convicted or prosecuted.

The paper trail may be evidence. It is not always the story.

The substantive trial in 2021

The four-day trial took place before Deputy Master Marsh. On 2 November 2021, he preferred Srendarjit’s evidence and found that during the relevant two years she and Fiaz had lived in the same household as if married. She therefore qualified for relief.

He awarded a 50% beneficial interest in 19 Salt Hill Mansions and a £385,000 lump sum. Of that lump sum, £200,000 was to be held back pending any claim or prosecution by the local authority or another relevant body arising from the admitted and found benefits fraud.

The £140,000 problem

The original £385,000 calculation included £140,000 for Srendarjit’s outstanding litigation costs. The Deputy Master later allowed £28,000 VAT on those costs, so the order referred to £403,000. That was not simply a £403,000 damages award: ordinary litigation costs had been incorporated into the substantive relief.

The 2024 appeal

Sajad and Shabana sought permission on seven grounds. Grounds 2–7 were refused. The only issue before James Pickering KC was whether the litigation costs had wrongly been included in the substantive award.

The finding that Srendarjit qualified for relief was not before the appeal court.

The appeal was allowed. The lump sum was reduced to exclude the £140,000 costs and £28,000 VAT. Costs were to be determined separately under CPR Part 44.

Because Srendarjit was “the clear winner” in the underlying proceedings, Sajad and Shabana were ordered to pay her costs of those proceedings, excluding the appeal, subject to detailed assessment on the standard basis if not agreed. The judge’s view that Srendarjit should pay the successful appellants’ appeal costs was expressly provisional; this article does not present it as a final assessed sum.

After Jassal

In Hirachand v Hirachand, the Supreme Court referred to Jassal and agreed that ordinary recoverable litigation costs belong in the CPR costs regime rather than the substantive 1975 Act award.

Could it have been mediated?

Potentially. If Srendarjit was believed, she qualified. If the defendants were believed, her principal route to eligibility was in serious difficulty. Mediation could have tested credibility, the documentary trail, the fraud admission, relationship evidence, housing and maintenance needs, estate value and likely costs.

The case had a binary factual issue. The settlement did not have to be binary.

Why costs make mediation especially relevant

The appeal judgment noted that the CPR costs regime encourages without-prejudice negotiation and settlement. Costs consequences, including those associated with formal offers, make the decision to reject settlement financially significant.

The estate was stated at just under £1.4 million. One side’s legal costs alone had reached £140,000 plus VAT. Costs are not a footnote to an inheritance war.

Who was Fiaz’s family when he died?

His final will said Sajad inherited and Srendarjit received nothing. The 1975 Act asked a different question: what was the reality of Fiaz and Srendarjit’s relationship in his final years? The answer depended not simply on a marriage certificate, address or will, but on how they were living.

The will said who should inherit. The court still had to decide who counted as family.

For the current law and reform debate, read inheritance rights of unmarried partners.

Related content

• Kaur v Singh
• Ilott v The Blue Cross
• McDaniel v Talbot
• Howe v Howe
• Deeds of Variation
• The Inheritance Wars hub

This article provides general commentary on Jassal v Shah & Anor [2024] EWHC 2214 (Ch), the underlying 2021 decision and inheritance disputes in England and Wales. It does not constitute legal advice.