A brother and sister who altered their dead father’s will in an attempt to swindle their siblings out of a shared inheritance worth thousands have avoided immediate jail terms.

Bradford Crown Court heard that Gurdev Singh made a will in July 2007 splitting his estate equally between his four children.

But when he died in October 2019 the will’s beneficiaries were altered so that eldest son Harjinder Singh and daughter Rashpal Sandhu stood to gain 50 per cent each, effectively disinheriting their siblings, in the hope of benefitting from the £154,500 sale in 2022 of their late father’s home.

The balance remaining after reductions was £87,000.

The alteration to the will followed “significant issues and disagreements” within the “very difficult and complex” family dynamic. By the time of the father’s death the siblings were estranged.

At trial Singh, 63, of Daleside Avenue, Stanningley, Pudsey, and Sandhu, 52, of Tyersal Walk, Tyersal, Bradford, were both found guilty of presenting a fraudulently produced codicil document as genuine.

Prosecutor Ella Embleton told the court that they produced the fraudulent codicil – a legal document used to alter an existing will – and submitted it to the Probate Registry.

The court heard that concerns were raised with the police as to whether Sandhu was properly discharging her responsibilities as executor of the will, and the existence of the codicil was discovered in 2020.

It contained a thumbprint purporting to belong to the dead man as well as various signatures, but one of the signatories admitted at the trial that he had signed it after Mr Singh’s death.

This was said to have taken place at a fish and chip shop with one of the signatories being illiterate with a poor command of English. No solicitor was present.

Forensic analysis showed that the thumbprint belonged to Harjinder Singh.

During interviews with police Singh denied any involvement in the fraud and blamed the matter on a conspiracy and intimidation involving his brother.

He maintained that version of events at the trial and could not explain how his thumbprint came to be on the codicil.

Sandhu said the codicil was drawn up at Bradford Royal Infirmary on October 12, 2019, when her father was still alive as he wanted to make amendments.

However she claimed not to be present in the room when it was signed and did not know any of the witnesses.

The effect of the alteration was that Singh and Sandhu stood to inherit more. That figure was initially put at £35,000 each but later reduced to £21,000 each.

Mitigating for Sandhu, Michael Watson accepted she had been party to an attempt to increase her share of the inheritance but that she was of previous good character.

Mitigating for Singh, Lucy Brown said he had not enjoyed a good relationship with his other siblings and that the animosity in the family pre-dated the offending.

Sentencing Singh and Sandu, District Judge Ella Anderson said: “This was an act of dishonesty committed by you both. I consider you both to be equally and jointly culpable in respect of this offence.

“The involvement of an illiterate acquaintance and the act of including the fingerprint of Harjinder Singh demonstrate to me that this was planned and thought through.

“Whether your actions were solely to make a financial gain through greed or in part motivated by significant ill-feeling amongst the family, I cannot be sure, but in any event the interference with the will and an attempt to alter the beneficiaries must be categorised as an abuse of trust.”

She sentenced Singh and Sandhu each to 18 months imprisonment suspended for two years. Both were ordered to undertake 20 rehabilitation activity requirement days and to pay costs: £1,000 for Singh and £2,000 for Sandhu.