YASH IS OUT, OR IS HE?: Yashovardhan Birla, according to the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, is not an heir to Priyamvada's estate where does the M.P. Birla foundation stand?

Scenario 1

R.S. Lodha is the executor of Priyamvada Birla's will. He'll be hoping to remain in control of the group while hostilities are on. The Birlas, on the other hand, are expected to seek the appointment of an administrator over the estate. Lawyers point out that there are precedents in support of both. There are several instances of executors remaining in control while a testamentary suit (a civil suit over a will) is on; and there are examples of court-appointed administrators taking control of the estate during the pendency of legal proceedings.

If the court accepts Lodha as executor and lets him remain in command, he will definitely have won the first round. For one, incumbency has its own advantages. Secondly, the Birlas will have to fight the case as rank outsiders. No one doubts their wherewithal to do this but the going will get decidedly tougher in such a scenario.

The pendulum will swing the other way if the court appoints an administrator. Without control, and with the Birlas applying the squeeze in other spheres, Lodha may be willing to cut his losses and settle out of court.

But both these scenarios would be in the nature of early skirmishes and may not really have much bearing on the final outcome of the case.

Scenario 2

Court upholds the sanctity of the will. That'll be the end of the matter. Lodha will have won decisively and the Birlas will have little else to do than ponder about the one that got away.

Scenario 3

Court sets the will aside. This would mean the end of the road for Lodha, at least with regard to the M.P. Birla Group. But it wouldn't by any means settle the matter decisively. If a judicial verdict does quash the will, Priyamvada Birla will be deemed to have died intestate (without leaving a will). In such an event, the provisions of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, will come into play. This opens up a range of possibilities.

According to Sections 15 and 16 of the Act, the property of a female Hindu-which she acquired from her husband or father-in-law-who dies issueless, will go to the heirs of her husband.

Since Birla had no children, her estate would pass to the heirs of late M.P. Birla. Schedule 8 of the Act sets out the order of succession. First up are the claims of the Class I heirs: son, daughter, widow, mother, children and grandchildren of any predeceased children and widow of a predeceased son of a predeceased son. All these people have an equal right over the estate of the deceased and the property will have to be equally divided amongst them. No relative or heir of late M.P. Birla satisfies these criteria.

Therefore, we come to the next category of inheritors: the Class II heirs. There are nine sub-categories of Class II heirs, such that those in Entry I are preferred over those in Entry II and so on, but those ranked within the same entry enjoy similar privileges. The search for the heir ends as soon as highest ranked heir is identified.

The nine categories are:

I) Father.
STATUS: Rameshwar Das (died before M.P. Birla).

II) (1) Son's daughter's son; (2) Son's daughter's daughter; (3) Brother; (4) Sister.
STATUS: M.P. Birla's brother Gajanan was disinherited and ostracised from the family in 1935 and died on August 21, 1961. Two of his sisters, Laxmi Devi Newar and Radha Mohta, are alive. According to the provisions of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, they have first claim over the estate if Priyamvada Birla's will is declared null and void. If they exercise this right, the search for heirs will end with them and no one else will be entitled to anything. However, if they renounce their rights, the search will start once more.

III) 1) Daughter's son's son; (2) Daughter's son's daughter; (3) Daughter's daughter's son; (4) Daughter's daughter's daughter.
STATUS: No such persons exist in M.P. Birla's case.

IV) 1) Brother's son; (2) Sister's son (3) Brother's daughter; (4) Sister's daughter.
STATUS: Gajanan Birla's son by his first marriage, Ashok Vardhan Birla died in a plane crash on February 14, 1990. But Ashok's sister Asha falls in this category and is definitely in line to succeed to M.P. Birla's estate. Gajanan also had three children from his second marriage: two daughters Gita and Anjali; and a son Madhukar. Madhukar died a few years ago, but Gita and Anjali are alive and have a legal claim over the estate. M.P. Birla's sisters also have sons and daughters. Asha, Gita, Anjali and M.P. Birla's sisters' children will inherit the estate equally. They will have to renounce their claims if the search is to proceed to the next level of heirs.

V) Father's father; Father's mother.
STATUS: No such persons exist in M.P. Birla's case.

VI) Father's widow; Brother's widow
STATUS: Gajanan Birla's first wife Gopi Devi is dead. His second wife Sumitra Devi, whom he married in 1946 is still alive and is next in line to inherit the estate.

VII) Father's brother; Father's sister.
STATUS: No such persons exist in M.P. Birla's case.

VIII) Mother's father; Mother's mother.
STATUS: No such persons exist in M.P. Birla's case.

IX) Mother's brother; Mother's sister
STATUS: No such persons exist in M.P. Birla's case.

Scenario 4

The Birlas claim that they are a Hindu Undivided Family (HUF) and guided by the Mitakshara school of law. Hindu succession takes place in accordance with two schools of law: Dayabhaga, which operates only in Bengal and Assam; and Mitakshara, which operates in the rest of the country. If the Birlas can prove that they are an HUF, Mitakshara laws will apply as they will be deemed to have carried the customs prevailing in their native land (Rajasthan) with them.

But lawyers say this line of argument is legally untenable. "M.P. Birla was the absolute owner of his properties and other assets. To now claim that he wasn't, and that he was merely the karta (head) of an HUF would be a flawed argument which no court will entertain," a top lawyer said. Also, it's not possible to create an HUF with retrospective effect. So this line of argument is clearly a non-starter.