With reference to Harsh Roongta’s article, “Where there is a will, there is a dispute” (August 24), the fact is we have laws
so loose and practices so vague that certain parasitic elements — lawyers, agents, land development agencies such as City and Industrial Development Corporation and housing societies — find it convenient to thrive. It is the individual who suffers.
Why can’t the law on wills stipulate a proper format, witness requirements, notarisation etc so that it cannot be challenged and courts can refuse to entertain cases, except in the case of a forgery? More than 80 per cent of cases in the courts would then disappear. It must be stipulated that all immovable and moveable assets, financial assets
etc, where a third party such as a bank, company or a housing society is involved, unless held in two names, must compulsorily have nominee(s). The third party concerned must obtain the know-your-customer documents of nominees. When the holder/owner dies, the authority should have no choice but to transfer the assets to the joint holder, if any, or the nominees without question. The need for a succession certificate, letter of administration etc should not arise. A notarised death certificate, which necessarily has the PAN
details of the deceased, should be sufficient.
Once such laws
are framed, courts would be free of disputes. Perhaps, this is what the establishment does not want. It uses loose laws
and ambiguous practices to provide parasitic employment, revenues as well as under-the-table payments. I have had personal experience of all this recently.
T R Ramaswami, Mumbai
can be mailed, faxed or e-mailed to:
The Editor, Business Standard
Nehru House, 4 Bahadur Shah Zafar Marg
New Delhi 110 002
Fax: (011) 23720201 · E-mail: firstname.lastname@example.org
All letters must have a postal address and telephone number