Dismissing Birlas' claim of any caveatable interest in the Priyamvada Birla will case, Rajendra Lodha on Thursday submitted before Calcutta high court that even if there exists a mutual will of 1982 it does not prevent granting of probate of a later will, which he claimed was her final testament.
Submitting that the arguments posed by the Birlas to support their claim to the property did not establish any caveatable interest in the probate application by Lodha for the 1999 will of Priyamvada, Lodha's solicitor Anindya Mitra claimed that the judgements cited by the Birlas itself were contradictory to their position.
Birla vs Lodha: War over a will
Mitra submitted that the Birlas had cited only parts of some earlier judgements and had not read the full text, which he claimed would have negated their claim for caveatable interest. He also cited some judgements in support of his proposition.
Countering Birlas' argument about right of Priyamvada Birla to bequeath the entire estate to Lodha, Mitra submitted that if a husband bequeaths his property to his wife, it becomes her absolute property and that she has all the right over it. The will of 1999 was her last testament, he said.
Birlas had earlier argued that as per a mutual will of 1982 of Priyamvada and her husband, M P Birla, the entire estate was to go to charities after their death.
Lodha, a chartered accountant and an auditor of a number of Birla companies, had claimed that the entire assets of M P Birla group worth Rs 5000 crore (Rs 50 billion) has been bequeathed to him by Priyamvada, who died on July 3 this year.
Mitra questioned whether the concept of mutual wills and also verbal agreements as claimed by the Birlas to have had taken place between M P Birla and Priyamvada, apply to Indian laws.
Appearing for the Birlas, solicitor Arun Jaitley had cited Australian and British laws to support his case for caveatable interest in the matter. Mitra on Thursday claimed that such references did not apply in the Indian context.
Mitra further claimed that any contract which defeats the principles of law is void, and that the theory of irrevocable mutual wills by M P Birla and his wife is such a contract.
Mitra submitted that the Birlas' claim that the property was meant for going to trusts for public good was only a sugar coated pill, claiming that if the property went to the Birlas, who claim to be the executors of the 1982 mutual wills, it would have led to the wiping out of M P Birla's name from the trusts, which Priyamvada did not want.
He also submitted that the caveaters -- K K Birla, B K Birla, Yash Birla and G P Birla are only the executors of the
1982 Wills, and not the legatees, claiming that as per Indian Succession Act, they have no caveatable interest.
Lodha, as per the purported will of 1999, is both the legatee and the executor of Priyamvada's will, he submitted.
The matter would again come up for hearing next Thursday.
© 2025