Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Bbl4.3 Family Law-Ii: Speedy Disposal of Succession Disputes: Need of The Hour
Bbl4.3 Family Law-Ii: Speedy Disposal of Succession Disputes: Need of The Hour
SUBMITTED BY:
SHARANGDHAR INGAWALE
UID- UGB22-53
SUBMITTED TO:
Prof. (Dr.) Vijender Kumar
Professor Of Law
Dr. Priti
Assistant Professor Of Law
1
TABLE OF CONTENTS
CHAPTER-I INTRODUCTION............................................................................................6
1. Statement of Problem.......................................................................................................6
3. Research Question.........................................................................................................7
4. Literature Review..........................................................................................................7
6. Research Methodology..................................................................................................8
1. INTRODUCTION.........................................................................................................9
b. Access to Justice.......................................................................................................10
b. Legal Barriers..........................................................................................................15
2
c. Inadequate Evidence...............................................................................................16
d. Procedural Barriers.................................................................................................16
e. Systemic Barriers.....................................................................................................16
a. Regulatory Reforms:...............................................................................................17
b. Procedural Reforms................................................................................................17
c. Institutional Interventions......................................................................................17
1. CONCLUSION............................................................................................................19
2. SUGGESTIONS..........................................................................................................20
3
BIBLIOGRAPHY..................................................................................................................23
CASES:................................................................................................................................23
Webliography:.....................................................................................................................23
4
CASES
Afcons Infrastructure Ltd. And Ors. v. Cherian Varkey Construction Co. pvt. Ltd and Ors.
(2010) 8 SCC 24--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------12
Anuradha Bhasin v. Union of India AIR 2020 SC 1308-------------------------------------------14
Bharat Aluminium Co. v. Kaiser Aluminium Technical Services Inc., AIR 2016 SC1285----13
Common Cause v. Union of India, AIR 2018 SC 1665--------------------------------------------14
Gurupad Khandappa Magdum v. Hirabai Khandappa Magdum 1978 AIR 1239.--------------17
Harshad Chiman Lal Modi v. DLF Universal Ltd, AIR 2005 SC 4446.-------------------------16
K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) v. Union of India, AIR 2018 SC (SUPP) 1841------------------------15
M. Anasuya v. M. Manik Reddy AIRONLINE 2003 SC 678-------------------------------------13
Narayan Bhaskar Khare v. Gopal Vinayak Joshi, 1957 AIR 69-----------------------------------11
Raghubir Singh v. State of Bihar, 1987 AIR 149.---------------------------------------------------11
Salem Advocate Bar Association v. Union of India, AIR 2005 SC 3353.-----------------------12
Santosh De v. Archana Guha, 1994 SCC (2) 420.---------------------------------------------------11
Shreya Singhal v. Union of India, AIR 2015 SC 1523---------------------------------------------15
Technocrats Advisory Services Private Limited v. Ministry of Road Transport & Highways
2021 SCC OnLine Del 3309------------------------------------------------------------------------13
Vakil Prasad Singh V. State Of Bihar, AIR 2009 SC 1822-----------------------------------------11
Vineeta Sharma v. Rakesh Sharma, AIR 2020 SC 3717.-------------------------------------------11
5
SPEEDY DISPOSAL OF SUCCESSION DISPUTES: NEED OF THE
HOUR
CHAPTER-I INTRODUCTION
1. Statement of Problem
The prolonged resolution of succession disputes poses multifaceted challenges with
significant implications for stakeholders, the legal system, and broader societal and economic
landscapes. Such delays not only impede timely justice for heirs, beneficiaries, and creditors
but also strain the efficiency and credibility of the legal framework. Consequently, the
unresolved disputes engender a ripple effect, impacting inheritance rights, financial stability,
and interpersonal relationships within families and communities. Moreover, the enduring
nature of these disputes exacerbates legal costs, judicial backlog, and societal discontent,
undermining the foundational principles of access to justice and the rule of law. Addressing
this issue necessitates a comprehensive understanding of its root causes, procedural
bottlenecks, and systemic inefficiencies, along with a critical evaluation of existing
mechanisms and potential reforms. By elucidating the complexities and implications of
delayed succession dispute resolution.
The study's objectives are manifold, with a primary aim to conduct a thorough examination of
the multifaceted challenges and implications entailed in the protracted resolution of
succession disputes. Firstly, it endeavours to illuminate the ramifications of deferred justice
on the diverse array of stakeholders embroiled in such disputes, encompassing heirs,
beneficiaries, creditors, and other pertinent parties. Secondly, it strives to meticulously
scrutinize extant strategies and mechanisms, such as alternative dispute resolution modalities,
with the intent of expediting the adjudication of succession conflicts, while judiciously
assessing their efficacy and contextual suitability. Thirdly, the research endeavors to probe the
nexus between technology and the resolution of succession disputes, discerning both its
potential advantages and limitations in expeditiously navigating the legal labyrinth.
Moreover, the study aspires to discern and comprehend the intricate web of legal, procedural,
and systemic factors that underpin the delay in settling succession disputes, with a view
towards proffering substantive reforms and interventions geared towards streamlining the
adjudicative process and ensuring the punctual and equitable resolution of succession-related
matters.
6
3. Research Question
3.1. How do prolonged succession disputes impact the efficacy of the legal system and
access to justice for all stakeholders, including heirs, beneficiaries, and creditors,
while considering the broader societal and economic ramifications?
3.2. What are the comparative advantages and limitations of alternative dispute resolution
mechanisms, such as mediation and arbitration, in expediting the resolution of
succession disputes, and how do they align with principles of fairness, equity, and
legal certainty?
3.3. To what extent can advancements in technology, such as online dispute resolution
platforms and digital case management systems, enhance the efficiency and
effectiveness of succession dispute resolution processes, and ethical and practical
considerations must be addressed in their implementation?
3.4. What are the underlying legal, procedural, and systemic barriers contributing to the
delay in resolving succession disputes?
3.5. How can regulatory reforms, procedural reforms, and institutional interventions be
leveraged to streamline the adjudication process and ensure timely and equitable
outcomes for all parties involved?
4. Literature Review
4.1. In "Navigating Estate Disputes in Succession" by CM Advocates LLP, published on
June 20, 2023, the article offers insights into the complexities of estate disputes
within succession matters. It likely discusses legal strategies and considerations for
navigating such disputes, providing valuable guidance for individuals and legal
professionals involved in inheritance conflicts.
4.2. The research paper was authored by Dr. K. I. Laibuta's article, "The Place of ADR in
Succession Disputes," published on March 12, 2018, explores the role of Alternative
Dispute Resolution (ADR) in resolving succession disputes. It likely delves into the
benefits of ADR methods such as mediation and arbitration in mitigating conflicts
arising from inheritance matters, offering a perspective on how these mechanisms
can promote amicable resolutions.
7
strain the legal system. By elucidating the underlying challenges and exploring potential
solutions, including alternative dispute resolution mechanisms and technological
interventions, the research endeavours to contribute to the enhancement of timely and
equitable outcomes in succession-related matters.
6. Research Methodology
The Doctrinal Method of research is followed throughout the paper and no static information
presented is collected first-hand. This project mainly uses the Descriptive
Research Methodology.
8
CHAPTER- II- ANALYSIS
1. INTRODUCTION
In today's world, succession disputes have become a common occurrence, and they can be a
source of great stress and anxiety for all parties involved. Succession disputes, which arise
from issues such as perceived inequality, lack of estate planning documents, and poorly
drafted planning, can lead to prolonged legal battles, emotional turmoil, and financial strain.
The impact of succession disputes is far-reaching, affecting not only the immediate family
members but also employees, stakeholders, and the overall continuity of family businesses.
The need for a systemic approach to understanding the dynamic effects of succession in
family businesses is evident, as it can have a significant impact on employee motivation,
work-related complaints, and the relationships among family members and non-family
employees. The lack of planning or poorly drafted planning can lead to all sorts of problems,
ultimately resulting in costly and time-consuming disputes. Therefore, it is essential to
address this issue proactively to avoid conflicts and emotional challenges during the
succession process. Open discussion, formalized planning, and clear communication are
crucial in mitigating the potential for disputes. Additionally, involving a neutral third party,
such as a mediator or a mentor, can help facilitate the succession process and resolve any
conflicts that may arise. By taking these proactive measures, families and businesses can
work towards a smoother transition and the avoidance of prolonged and costly legal battles.
Succession disputes can be emotionally draining and can cause significant financial and
personal stress for all parties involved. Therefore, there is a need for a speedy and efficient
mechanism for the resolution of these disputes. Furthermore, the prolonged nature of
succession disputes can have detrimental effects on the businesses and assets at the center of
the conflict. Therefore, it is imperative to implement measures that ensure the swift and
efficient resolution of succession disputes to minimize the adverse impact on all stakeholders.
The resolution of succession disputes without conflict is a multifaceted challenge that
requires a delicate balance of legal, financial, and emotional considerations. Diplomatic
negotiations, legal agreements, and alternative dispute resolution methods such as mediation
and arbitration can play a crucial role in addressing succession challenges without escalating
into prolonged and adversarial litigation. Additionally, effective succession planning, clear
communication, and the involvement of all stakeholders in the process are essential to
managing conflicts and emotions during the succession process.
9
In the context of family-owned businesses, succession planning is a critical aspect of ensuring
a smooth transition of leadership and ownership. However, the lack of adequate succession
planning can lead to significant disruptions and conflicts, making it essential for family
businesses to proactively address succession challenges and implement formal succession
planning processes. By defining the roles and rights of all stakeholders, communicating
transparently about succession planning, and obtaining professional guidance, family
businesses can mitigate the risk of succession disputes and ensure a seamless transition of
leadership. The impact of delayed marriages and civil ceremonies on succession further
underscores the need for proactive succession planning and clear legal frameworks to address
the implications of these societal changes on inheritance and asset distribution. By staying
informed about the evolving legal landscape and seeking professional guidance, individuals
and families can navigate the complexities of succession planning and mitigate the potential
impact of delayed marriages and civil ceremonies on succession.
b. Access to Justice
For stakeholders involved in succession disputes, such as heirs, beneficiaries, and creditors,
prolonged legal battles can be emotionally draining and financially burdensome. The delays
in resolving these disputes can result in a prolonged state of uncertainty, affecting the
financial stability and emotional well-being of those involved. Access to justice becomes a
distant reality as the legal process becomes protracted, costly, and often inaccessible to those
10
without substantial resources. In the case of Vakil Prasad Singh v. State of Bihar 1, The court
has emphasized that prompt justice and prompt investigation are necessary to safeguard the
constitutionally guaranteed right under Article 21. They held that protecting one's right to life
and personal liberty is crucial, particularly when it comes to the legal system and, as was
already noted, setting the criminal matters that are currently pending before the courts in
perspective. In the case of Santosh De v. Archana Guha2, This case laid out the importance
of prompt justice in situations where there has been no progress in court proceedings for a
long time while the accused or convict has suffered as a result of the delays that have
impeded their case, which infringes upon their fundamental right to life and personal liberty.
The court stated that the proceedings were prevented since the matter had been pending for
14 years. The court also decided that the right to a speedy trial had been violated by the 8
years of inexplicable delay.. In the case of Raghubir Singh v. State of Bihar3, The court
settled that the police investigation's delay wasn't admissible as a justification for violating
the right to a speedy trial, citing the case's particulars and the nation's overall circumstances
as reasons for the wait.
1
Vakil Prasad Singh V. State Of Bihar, AIR 2009 SC 1822.
2
Santosh De v. Archana Guha, 1994 SCC (2) 420.
3
Raghubir Singh v. State of Bihar, 1987 AIR 149.
4
Vineeta Sharma v. Rakesh Sharma, AIR 2020 SC 3717.
5
Narayan Bhaskar Khare v. Gopal Vinayak Joshi, 1957 AIR 69.
11
protracted litigation, highlighting the financial strain borne by parties embroiled in succession
disputes. Inheritance assets, ensnared in legal limbo, remain inaccessible for productive
utilization, stifling economic growth and investment potential.
Furthermore, mediation aligns with principles of legal certainty by offering parties a degree
of control over the outcome and fostering clarity in understanding rights and obligations. The
case of Afcons Infrastructure Ltd. And Ors. v. Cherian Varkey Construction Co. pvt. Ltd
and Ors.7 elucidates the enforceability of mediated settlements, affirming their binding
nature and conferring legal certainty upon parties. Through mediation, parties can circumvent
the uncertainties inherent in protracted litigation, forging expedient resolutions that provide
closure and certainty for all stakeholders involved.
However, mediation is not without limitations. The voluntary nature of the process may
render it ineffective in cases where parties are entrenched in adversarial positions or
6
Salem Advocate Bar Association v. Union of India, AIR 2005 SC 3353.
7
Afcons Infrastructure Ltd. And Ors. v. Cherian Varkey Construction Co. pvt. Ltd and Ors. (2010) 8 SCC 24.
12
unwilling to engage in constructive dialogue. Moreover, power imbalances or asymmetry of
information between parties can undermine the efficacy of mediation, perpetuating disparities
and inhibiting the attainment of equitable outcomes. The case of Bharat Aluminium Co. v.
Kaiser Aluminium Technical Services Inc.8 underscores the judiciary's role in safeguarding
the integrity of mediated settlements by scrutinizing the voluntariness and fairness of the
process, underscoring the imperative of informed consent and procedural fairness.
On the other hand, arbitration offers a binding adjudicatory process wherein parties submit
their dispute to a neutral arbitrator or panel for resolution. In the case of M. Anasuya v. M.
Manik Reddy9, the judiciary recognized arbitration as an efficacious alternative to traditional
litigation, affirming the finality and enforceability of arbitral awards. By affording parties a
forum for expedited resolution and procedural flexibility, arbitration mitigates the delays
inherent in court proceedings, thereby aligning with principles of efficiency and expediency.
However, arbitration is not immune to criticism, particularly concerning its perceived lack of
transparency and accountability. The confidentiality of arbitral proceedings may hinder public
scrutiny and impede the development of jurisprudence, potentially undermining principles of
legal certainty and consistency. Additionally, the costs associated with arbitration, including
arbitrator fees and administrative expenses, may render it inaccessible to parties with limited
financial resources, exacerbating disparities and perpetuating inequities.
8
Bharat Aluminium Co. v. Kaiser Aluminium Technical Services Inc., AIR 2016 SC1285
9
M. Anasuya v. M. Manik Reddy AIRONLINE 2003 SC 678
10
Technocrats Advisory Services Private Limited v. Ministry of Road Transport & Highways 2021 SCC OnLine
Del 3309
13
and effectiveness of succession dispute resolution processes. However, their implementation
raises important ethical and practical considerations that must be addressed to ensure their
successful integration into the legal framework. Through an in-depth analysis grounded in
Indian case law, this discourse aims to explore the multifaceted impact of technological
advancements on succession dispute resolution.
a. Accessibility and Inclusivity: The importance of ensuring access to justice for all
individuals, regardless of geographic location or socioeconomic status. ODR platforms
can bridge gaps in accessibility by providing a convenient and cost-effective means for
parties to engage in dispute resolution remotely. This enhances inclusivity by
accommodating individuals who may face barriers to accessing traditional legal
processes due to factors such as distance or mobility constraints.
b. Efficiency and Expediency: The case of Common Cause v. Union of India 11highlights
the judiciary's recognition of the need for judicial efficiency and expediency. Digital
case management systems streamline administrative processes, such as case filing and
document management, thereby reducing procedural delays and backlog. By digitizing
case records and facilitating electronic communication, these systems enable courts to
handle cases more efficiently, leading to quicker resolution and improved access to
justice for litigants.
11
Common Cause v. Union of India, AIR 2018 SC 1665.
12
Anuradha Bhasin v. Union of India AIR 2020 SC 1308.
14
d. Data Privacy and Security: The landmark judgment in Justice K.S. Puttaswamy
(Retd.) v. Union of India13 established the fundamental right to privacy as a cornerstone
of individual liberties. Ethical considerations surrounding data privacy and security are
paramount in the implementation of technology-driven dispute resolution mechanisms.
ODR platforms and digital case management systems must adhere to stringent data
protection measures to safeguard sensitive personal information and uphold individuals'
right to privacy. This includes implementing robust encryption protocols, obtaining
informed consent for data collection and storage, and ensuring compliance with relevant
data protection laws.
e. Equity and Fairness: In Shreya Singhal v. Union of India14, the court emphasized the
importance of balancing innovation with legal safeguards to protect individuals’ rights
and liberties. Similarly, in the context of technological advancements in dispute
resolution, it is essential to maintain a balance between efficiency and fairness. ODR
platforms should ensure procedural fairness by providing equal opportunities for all
parties to present their case and access relevant information. Additionally, mechanisms
should be in place to address power imbalances and ensure that vulnerable parties are
not disadvantaged in the digital dispute resolution process.
13
K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) v. Union of India, AIR 2018 SC (SUPP) 1841.
14
Shreya Singhal v. Union of India, AIR 2015 SC 1523
15
Complex Legal Framework: Succession laws can be intricate, leading to
confusion and disputes over interpretation, especially in cases involving
multiple family units or polygamous settings.15
c. Inadequate Evidence
Lack of concrete evidence to support claims can prolong disputes,
emphasizing the importance of adhering to the best evidence rule to
substantiate allegations.
d. Procedural Barriers
i. Court Backlogs: Overburdened courts and lengthy legal processes
contribute significantly to delays in resolving succession disputes,
impacting access to justice for litigants.
ii. Inflexibility: Technicalities in laws and rigid decision-making processes
can impede efficient resolution, leading to prolonged litigation and
heightened emotional distress.
e. Systemic Barriers
i. Limited Infrastructure: Inadequate court infrastructure and resources
hinder the efficient handling of succession cases, exacerbating delays in
the judicial system.
ii. Lack of ADR Promotion: Limited awareness and promotion of
Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) mechanisms like mediation
contribute to the reliance on traditional litigation, prolonging dispute
resolution timelines.16
Harshad Chiman Lal Modi v. DLF Universal Ltd17: This case highlighted the importance of
voluntary cooperation and out-of-court settlement in succession disputes, emphasizing the
need for parties to consider alternative dispute resolution methods.
15
LLP, CM Advocates. “Navigating Estate Disputes in Succession.” CM Advocates LLP, 20 June 2023,
cmadvocates.com/blog/navigating-estate-disputes-in-succession.
16
Laibuta, Dr K. I. The Place of ADR in Succession Disputes - Premier LC-ADR Consultants. 12 Mar. 2018, lc-
adr.net/blog/the-place-of-adr-in-succession-disputes.
17
Harshad Chiman Lal Modi v. DLF Universal Ltd, AIR 2005 SC 4446.
16
Booz Allen & Hamilton Inc. v. SBI Home Finance Ltd 18: The judgment underscored the
significance of enforceable arbitration agreements in expediting dispute resolution and
reducing delays inherent in traditional litigation processes.
Afcons Infrastructure Ltd. v. Cherian Varkey Construction Co 19: This case exemplified how
arbitration can efficiently resolve construction-related disputes, showcasing a quicker
alternative to lengthy court proceedings that contribute to delays.
18
Ibid.
19
Supra note at 7.
20
Supra note at 4.
21
Gurupad Khandappa Magdum v. Hirabai Khandappa Magdum 1978 AIR 1239.
17
technology-enabled court management systems to facilitate case tracking and
management.
e. Judicial Training and Capacity Building: Judicial training and capacity building are
essential to equip judges with the necessary skills and knowledge to adjudicate
succession disputes effectively. The case of Common Cause v. Union of India23
underscores the importance of ongoing professional development for judges to keep
pace with evolving legal principles and procedural requirements. Institutional
interventions should prioritize judicial training programs and workshops focused on
succession law and dispute resolution techniques to enhance judicial competence and
efficiency.
f. Public Awareness and Legal Literacy: Public awareness and legal literacy initiatives
are essential to empower individuals to navigate succession laws and procedures
effectively. The case of Anuradha Bhasin v. Union of India24 emphasizes the
importance of promoting legal awareness to ensure equal access to justice for all.
Regulatory and institutional interventions should invest in public outreach programs
and educational campaigns to raise awareness about succession laws, rights, and
dispute resolution options, thereby empowering individuals to make informed
decisions and resolve disputes expeditiously.
22
Supra note at 7.
23
Supra note at 11.
24
Supra note at 12.
18
CHAPTER - III - CONCLUSION AND SUGGESTIONS
1. CONCLUSION
The conclusion emphasizes the critical importance of addressing succession disputes within
the family law context. Succession disputes, stemming from issues such as perceived
inequality, lack of estate planning documents, and poorly drafted planning, can have far-
reaching implications on family dynamics, business continuity, and the overall well-being of
stakeholders. The document highlights the need for a systemic approach to understanding the
dynamic effects of succession in family businesses, as these disputes can lead to prolonged
legal battles, emotional turmoil, and financial strain for all parties involved. One of the key
takeaways is the impact of prolonged succession disputes on the legal system and access to
justice. Delays in resolving succession disputes can strain the efficacy of the legal system,
hinder access to justice for litigants, and have broader societal and economic ramifications.
The analysis underscores the importance of evaluating the efficacy of mediation and
arbitration in promoting fairness, equity, and legal certainty in resolving succession disputes.
Alternative dispute resolution mechanisms play a crucial role in expediting the resolution
process and minimizing the adverse effects of prolonged legal battles on all stakeholders.
Moreover, explores the role of technological advancements in enhancing the efficiency and
effectiveness of succession dispute resolution processes. By leveraging online dispute
resolution platforms, digital case management systems, and other technological tools,
stakeholders can streamline the resolution process, improve accessibility, ensure data privacy
and security, and promote fairness in resolving succession disputes. These advancements not
only expedite the resolution process but also contribute to a more transparent and accountable
dispute resolution framework. Identifying legal, procedural, and systemic barriers in
succession dispute resolution is crucial for understanding the challenges that contribute to
delays in resolving disputes. Factors such as court backlogs, legal complexities, inadequate
evidence, procedural hurdles, and limited infrastructure pose significant obstacles to timely
and equitable outcomes in succession disputes. By addressing these barriers and leveraging
regulatory, procedural, and institutional reforms, stakeholders can streamline the adjudication
process and ensure fair and efficient resolution of succession-related matters. In conclusion,
the need for a proactive and collaborative approach to succession dispute resolution within
the family law domain. By promoting open discussion, formalized planning, and clear
communication among stakeholders, families and businesses can work towards a smoother
transition and the avoidance of prolonged and costly legal battles. Encouraging the
19
involvement of neutral third parties, such as mediators or mentors, can facilitate the
succession process and help resolve conflicts that may arise. Therefore it is important to
timely and equitable resolution of succession disputes, highlighting the significance of
proactive measures, alternative dispute resolution mechanisms, technological advancements,
and regulatory reforms in navigating the complexities of family law and ensuring just
outcomes for all parties involved. By addressing the identified barriers and leveraging
collaborative and innovative approaches, stakeholders can mitigate conflicts, minimize
delays, and foster a more efficient and effective resolution of succession-related matters
within the family law framework.
2. SUGGESTIONS
2.1. Promote Mediation and Arbitration: Encourage parties involved in
succession disputes to opt for mediation and arbitration as alternative dispute
resolution mechanisms. This can help expedite the resolution process by facilitating
direct communication and negotiation between the parties, leading to quicker and
more amicable settlements.
2.2. Enhance Legal Awareness: Conduct legal awareness programs and
workshops to educate individuals on succession laws, estate planning, and dispute
resolution options. Better understanding of legal rights and obligations can prevent
misunderstandings and conflicts, thereby reducing the likelihood of prolonged
disputes.
2.3. Utilize Technology: Embrace technological solutions such as online dispute
resolution platforms, e-filing systems, and virtual hearings to streamline the resolution
process. Leveraging technology can improve accessibility, efficiency, and
transparency in handling succession disputes, ultimately expediting the overall
resolution timeline.
2.4. Specialized Training for Legal Professionals : Provide specialized training to
legal professionals, including judges, lawyers, and mediators, on succession laws and
dispute resolution techniques. Equipping legal practitioners with the necessary skills
and knowledge can enhance their ability to handle succession cases efficiently and
effectively.
2.5. Establish Fast-Track Courts: Introduce dedicated fast-track courts or
specialized tribunals to exclusively deal with succession disputes. These specialized
20
courts can prioritize succession cases, expedite hearings, and ensure swift resolution
of disputes, thereby reducing backlog and delays in the legal system.
2.6. Encourage Pre-litigation Settlements: Encourage parties to explore
settlement options before resorting to litigation. Facilitate pre-litigation mediation
sessions or settlement conferences to promote early resolution of disputes and avoid
lengthy court proceedings, saving time and resources for all parties involved.
2.7. Standardize Procedures: Standardize procedural requirements and
documentation for succession cases to streamline the resolution process. Clear and
uniform guidelines can help reduce confusion, eliminate unnecessary delays, and
ensure consistency in handling succession disputes across different jurisdictions.
2.8. Facilitate Access to Legal Aid: Improve access to legal aid services for
individuals involved in succession disputes, especially those from marginalized or
economically disadvantaged backgrounds. Providing legal assistance and support can
help navigate complex legal processes, promote timely resolution, and ensure
equitable outcomes for all parties.
2.9. Encourage Collaborative Planning: Encourage families to engage in
collaborative estate planning and succession discussions to prevent potential disputes
in the future. By fostering open communication, transparency, and consensus-building
among family members, the likelihood of contentious succession issues can be
minimized, leading to smoother transitions and quicker resolutions.
2.10. Implement Case Management Systems: Implement efficient case
management systems and digital tools to track and monitor the progress of succession
cases. Automated case management can help identify bottlenecks, prioritize urgent
matters, and ensure timely follow-up actions, thereby expediting the resolution of
succession disputes.
2.11. Facilitate Early Neutral Evaluation: Introduce early neutral evaluation
processes where an impartial third party assesses the strengths and weaknesses of
each party's case. This early assessment can help parties understand the merits of their
claims, encourage settlement negotiations, and potentially resolve disputes at an early
stage, expediting the overall resolution process.
2.12. Encourage Collaborative Law Practices: Promote collaborative law
practices in handling succession disputes, where parties and their legal representatives
commit to resolving the dispute through cooperative negotiations rather than
adversarial litigation. Collaborative approaches can foster constructive dialogue,
21
promote creative solutions, and lead to quicker resolutions while preserving
relationships among family members.
2.13. Establish Succession Planning Clinics: Set up specialized succession
planning clinics or centers where individuals can seek guidance on estate planning,
inheritance laws, and succession strategies. These clinics can offer educational
resources, legal assistance, and mediation services to help families proactively address
succession issues, prevent disputes, and ensure smoother transitions, ultimately
reducing the likelihood of prolonged legal battles.
22
BIBLIOGRAPHY
CASES:
1. Afcons Infrastructure Ltd. And Ors. V. Cherian Varkey Construction Co. Pvt. Ltd And
Ors. (2010) 8 SCC 24.
2. Anuradha Bhasin V. Union Of India AIR 2020 SC 1308.
3. Bharat Aluminium Co. V. Kaiser Aluminium Technical Services Inc., AIR 2016
SC1285.
4. Common Cause V. Union Of India, AIR 2018 SC 1665.
5. Gurupad Khandappa Magdum V. Hirabai Khandappa Magdum 1978 AIR 1239.
6. Harshad Chiman Lal Modi V. DLF Universal Ltd, AIR 2005 SC 4446.
7. K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) V. Union Of India, AIR 2018 SC (SUPP) 1841.
8. M. Anasuya V. M. Manik Reddy AIRONLINE 2003 SC 67.
9. Narayan Bhaskar Khare V. Gopal Vinayak Joshi, 1957 AIR 69.
10. Raghubir Singh V. State Of Bihar, 1987 AIR 149.
11. Salem Advocate Bar Association V. Union Of India, AIR 2005 SC 3353.
12. Santosh De V. Archana Guha, 1994 SCC (2) 420.
13. Shreya Singhal V. Union Of India, AIR 2015 SC 1523.
14. Technocrats Advisory Services Private Limited V. Ministry Of Road Transport &
Highways 2021 SCC Online Del 3309.
15. Vakil Prasad Singh V. State Of Bihar, AIR 2009 SC 1822.
16. Vineeta Sharma V. Rakesh Sharma, AIR 2020 SC 3717.
Webliography:
1. LLP, CM Advocates. “Navigating Estate Disputes in Succession.” CM Advocates
LLP, 20 June 2023, cmadvocates.com/blog/navigating-estate-disputes-in-succession.
2. Laibuta, Dr K. I. The Place of ADR in Succession Disputes - Premier LC-ADR
Consultants. 12 Mar. 2018, lc-adr.net/blog/the-place-of-adr-in-succession-disputes.
23