Page 33 - Seniorstoday February 2023 Issue

a canny investor, he had turned over his detailed discussions and understanding
wealth several times over and amassed
an estate worth over Rs 100 crore.
Unfortunately, his health took a turn for
the worst and he soon passed.
He was a methodical man with a sense
of fair play and had not forgotten the
invaluable and generous help of his two
other friends. He left a will behind and his
family noticed that he had willed Rs 24
crore for his two friends, to be paid to them
and shared mutually as per their choice.
Now the story takes an interesting turn
here. The two surviving friends, who
had initially contributed Rs 5 lakh and
Rs 3 lakh respectively, came to know
of the grace and generosity of their
deceased friend. The two got together
and discussed how best to logically
divide the willed amount of Rs 24 crores
amongst themselves. The person who had
contributed Rs 3 lakh, was of the view
that since their friend had not mentioned
anything and left the amount to both
of them, Rs 24 crore should be divided
equally between themselves. Hearing
this, the person who had contributed Rs
5 lakh, felt that in the interest of fairness,
he ought to be getting Rs 15 crore and the
other person only Rs 9 crore, since his
contribution of Rs 5 lakh ( to the total seed
capital of Rs 8 lakh) was 62.5%, while that
of the other contributing Rs 3 lakh, was
only 37.5%. Essentially, his argument was
that Rs 24 crore should be split in the ratio
of 5:3. They went into multiple rounds of
discussions and debates, but could not
come to an agreement. The former tried
to convince the latter repeatedly. But the
latter was not convinced and referred
the matter to an arbitrator, whom both
trusted for his sagacity and were thus
willing to accept his verdict. At the end of
SENIORS TODAY | ISSUE #44 | FEBRUARY 2023
the background of the case, the arbitrator
ruled that Rs 21 crore should be the share
of the person contributing Rs 5 lakh
and Rs 3 crore should go to the person
contributing Rs 3 lakh. His rationale was
that in the original distribution ratio of 8,8
and 8, the former had contributed 7 to the
indigent person’s share of 8 and the latter
has contributed only 1. In other words,
out of the initial multiple of 15 (5*3) of the
former, he had contributed 7 (15 less his
own share of 8), while the later, out of the
multiple of 9 ( 3*3 ), had contributed only 1
(9 less his own factor of 8), making for the
total share of 8 that the deceased person
had.
The latter accepted the decision as a good
sport and friend of the former, but rued
the fact that he had not accepted the initial
offer of Rs 9 crore as his share of Rs 24
crore. The arbitrator’s decision had left
him poorer by Rs 6 crore. Nothing can be
seen in isolation and everything can be
seen differently, quite clearly.
Here is the story of another family. The
parents died intestate leaving behind
an apartment and jewellery to their five
children, three daughters and two sons,
each settled in life and doing variously
on the financial front. After mutual
discussions, and based on the advice of a
close family friend, the siblings decided
that the apartment should be sold and
Continued on Page No 36
33