The Delhi High Court restrained DTIDC from
Deals & Matter
Inheritance Fight Over Mrs. Satula Devi’s Legacy
Family Law
Succession Law
Inheritance Fight Over Mrs. Satula Devi’s Legacy
- O.M.P. (I) (COMM.) 349/2022
- 29 November 2022
- Delhi High Court
Background and Family History
Late Mrs. Satula Devi, mother-in-law of the appellant Geeta Sharma, was married to Late Dr. Mahendra Prasad, who came from a humble background and was a schoolteacher before entering business. At the time of marriage in 1960, Satula Devi brought large quantities of gold as stridhan.
Dr. Prasad eventually became a seven-term Member of Parliament and founder of Aristo Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd., Aristo Laboratories Pvt. Ltd., and Mapra Laboratories Pvt. Ltd., holding about 85% of the shares. His estate, comprising company shares, fixed deposits, immovable properties, and other assets, is valued at over ₹40,000 crores, including fixed deposits worth ₹4,500 crores and dividends exceeding ₹380 crores annually.
Death of Dr. Prasad and Probate Proceedings
The Dr. Prasad died on 27 December 2021. Shortly after, Kanchana Rai filed a probate petition (Test. Cas. 01/2022) seeking to validate the alleged 2011 Will, which named her as executor and her children as beneficiaries. The Will disinherited Rajeev Sharma and made no provision for Satula Devi, Geeta Sharma, or her children.
Geeta Sharma’s husband contested the Will, claiming his rightful one-third share in the ₹40,000-crore estate. He argued the Will was forged, pointing to Dr. Prasad’s long-standing cognitive decline.
Death of Satula Devi and Ranjit Sharma
Satula Devi died in June 2022, and her son Ranjit Sharma (Geeta’s husband) passed away in March 2023. This left Geeta, a homemaker with no independent income, in financial difficulty. Her elder son is studying in the UK, with tuition and living expenses exceeding ₹50 lakhs annually. Her younger son’s business attempt failed, and he has taken loans from friends.
Maintenance Proceedings and Housing Issues
The Geeta applied to the Sole Guardian for maintenance from the estate but was told only the Family Court had jurisdiction. In May 2023, she filed a petition under Sections 19, 21, 22, and 23 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956 (HAMA), seeking maintenance and residence. During the proceedings:
- She was compelled to vacate her mother’s house and live with her sister.
- Her plea for interim residence was repeatedly denied, partly because the Court believed she had funds from an unrelated property sale (funded by a loan/settlement with her uncle).
- The Family Court focused heavily on her bank records, assets, and her sons’ finances, without first deciding the maintainability issue.
She claimed she sought only about 1% of the estate’s annual income (less than one-tenth of what Kanchana Rai allegedly receives in dividends).
Deals & Matter Corner
Delhi High Court appeal challenges the disputed
Articles & Publications
The Division Bench of the Delhi High
Varun Singh, Founder and Managing Partner, Foresight
Blogs
Section 27 of the Arbitration and Conciliation
The power of a governmental authority or
Financial Picture of the Estate
In May 2024, the Sole Guardian reported:
- Bank balances of ₹575 crores.
- Term deposits worth ₹3,762 crores earning interest in crores.
- Dividends of ₹1,100 crores between FY 2021–22 and FY 2023–24.
Supreme Despite this, Geeta says she is living on dwindling savings (from ₹1.15 crores in July 2023 to ₹12 lakhs in April 2024), having borrowed against gold jewellery — which was later stolen — to fund her son’s education.
Mediation efforts collapsed in March 2024 without resolution.
Family Court Decision and Appeal
On 27 August 2024, the Family Court dismissed Geeta Sharma’s HAMA petition, holding it was not maintainable under Section 22 of the Act, interpreting “dependant” narrowly to exclude her.
She has now appealed to the Delhi High Court under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act, arguing:
- The dismissal was based on an erroneous reading of the law.
- Denying her maintenance undermines the protective intent of HAMA.
Core Legal Issues in the Appeal
Maintainability under Section 22 HAMA
Whether a widowed daughter-in-law qualifies as a “dependant” of her late father-in-law’s estate when she lacks independent means and the estate is vast.
Validity of the Alleged Will
If the Will is void, succession would follow intestate rules, potentially entitling her to a one-third share.
Rights from Stridhan Origin
Since the estate was seeded with Satula Devi’s gold, whether her legal heirs (including Geeta) have a stronger claim.
Interim Maintenance
Whether denial pending probate is justified given the estate’s size and liquidity.
Court’s Decision
In brief, the “Satula Devi – ₹40,000-crore estate” matter is a high-stakes inheritance and maintenance dispute intertwined with allegations of fraud, undue influence over an incapacitated patriarch, forged documents, prolonged litigation, and procedural gamesmanship. Geeta Sharma’s appeal seeks to reverse the Family Court’s refusal to grant her maintenance from an estate that remains under court-appointed guardianship, arguing both legal entitlement and dire financial need.
Deals and Matter
Sapphire Media Services vs Delhi Transport Infrastructure Development Corporation Ltd. & Ors.
Innovation
The Delhi High Court restrained DTIDC from invoking ₹1.71 crore bank guarantees under a void concession agreement, citing fraud and irretrievable injustice.
Learn More →Inheritance Fight Over Mrs. Satula Devi’s Legacy
Advisory
Delhi High Court appeal challenges the disputed will, citing denial of maintenance and questioning inheritance rights in Dr. Mahendra Prasad’s ₹40,000-crore estate.
Learn More →
Sudhir Kumar Lad vs CBI Issue SC Grants Bail After Prolonged Custody
Innovation
The Supreme Court held that prolonged custody, without any substantial progress in trial proceedings, amounts to a violation of the fundamental right to personal liberty.
Learn More →
Vinod Dua vs. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) & Anr. case
Innovation
The Supreme Court held dissent is not defamation, critique is not sedition, and quashed the FIR against Vinod Dua, affirming free speech as democracy’s cornerstone.
Learn More →
Kanchana Rai Vs. State of Nct of Delhi & Ors.
Advisory
The Delhi High Court, citing medical incapacity and asset risk, appointed an interim guardian to manage Mr. DMP’s ₹3,000-crore estate pending the guardianship dispute.
Learn More →
P.S. Maini Vs Avtar Singh
Regulatory
Supreme Court sets aside NCDRC order as parties settle medical negligence dispute through ₹11 lakh humanitarian payment without admission of negligence.
Learn More →
Naresh Kumar Sharma vs Paralympic Committee of India
Advisory
The Delhi High Court dismissed Naresh Kumar Sharma’s plea but asked the Sports Ministry to review his discrimination claims against PCI’s selection process.
Learn More →
Raman Kumar & Ors. vs Union of India
Advisory
Supreme Court regularizes services of long-serving Group ‘D’ employees, holding selective denial arbitrary and iolative of Article 14.
Learn More →
Alok Kumar vs State of Bihar
Advisory
Alok Kumar vs State of Bihar SC balances liberty with victim restitution through ₹13.94 Cr deposit condition.
Learn More →
Aarav Jain & Ors. vs. Bihar Public Service Commission & Ors.
Advisory
Court holds merit cannot be sacrificed for technical lapses; disqualification for delayed submission of documents set aside.
Learn More →
Vikas Balaguer Shammi vs. State
Advisory
Court weighs 7 years of custody, contradictory testimonies, and co-accused parity against gravity of murder charge in hanghai-30 bar brawl case.
Learn More →
Delhi Development Authority vs. Tejpal (Supreme Court, 2024)
Advisory
Delhi Development Authority vs Tejpal Supreme Court rules that possession taken through memo and deposited compensation prevent lapse under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act.
Learn More →