The six children of an immigrant rags-to-riches dishwasher who ended up a multimillionaire curry tycoon are locked in a bitter court war over his £4.6m fortune.

Abdul Khan, who died aged 67 in 2008, built up a lucrative property empire in London having started out as a humble dishwasher in a West End hotel after travelling to the UK from Bangladesh in the 1960s.

He worked his way up to become a chef and eventually boss of a successful Indian restaurant, the Clapham Tandoori, on Clapham Common, before going on to buy up a string of south London properties, now worth millions. 

His children are now in a legal tug of war over who owns the string of homes, with Mr Khan’s oldest son, Muhammed Khan, 49, insisting he ‘is the sole beneficial owner’. 

But his five siblings, Ahmed, 43, Sarwar, 42, Shalima, 45, Farhana, 46, and Jennifer Khan, 44, claim Muhammed is a ‘cuckoo’ and insist they all have a stake in the property portfolio, which they say is held in a trust backed by their late father.  

They claim a binding deal was done at a ‘family meeting’ 20 years ago which would see each of the three sons receiving a one-third split from three of the properties, while Muhammed’s three sisters would be given leasehold interest of the fourth. 

But Muhammed ‘disputes the existence’ of the agreement, claiming his brothers have invented the ‘fictitious’ 2004 meeting. 

Muhammed Khan, 49, (pictured at the High Court) son of the late multimillionaire curry tycoon Abdul Khan has insisted he ‘is the sole beneficial owner’ of the family’s £4.6m fortune

Barrister William East, for the five siblings, told London’s High Court that canny entrepreneur Abdul Khan used profits from his successful curry house to buy houses in Tooting Bec, Norbury, West Norwood and Upper Norwood, currently worth around £4.6million.

Muhammed’s brothers and sisters insist they all have a stake in the portfolio, which they say was established as a family concern and for all their benefit.

But Muhammed is ‘resisting the claim in its entirety’, said Mr East, adding: ‘He says that he is the sole beneficial owner of all the properties’.

Muhammed had gone through a rocky relationship with his father in the 1990s and the early 2000s, with Mr Khan criticising his oldest son having ‘multiple children out of wedlock.’

But relations between father and son thawed when Muhammed began to embrace his responsibilities and become more involved in the family property empire, the court heard, reaching a point where he ended up almost ‘freezing out’ his younger brother, Ahmed.

Mr East said his clients seek a judge’s confirmation that three of the properties are held on trust for the three sons in equal shares – and that the fourth property in Essex Grove, Upper Norwood, is held on trust for Abdul’s three daughters.

The respective houses are in Stapleton Road, Tooting Bec; Norbury Crescent, Norbury; Ullswater Road, West Norwood; and Essex Grove, Upper Norwood.

Muhammed is accused of ‘freezing out’ his younger brother Ahmed Khan (pictured) from the family fortune – which Ahmed said all six siblings had a stake in, following a binding trust deal made during a 2004 ‘family meeting’

They also seek court orders that Muhammed should transfer the leasehold interests in the Essex Grove house to the three sisters, plus orders for sale of the three other homes.

From the witness box, Ahmed denied resenting his older sibling for muscling in on the family business after a ‘missing decade’ when he was alienated from his dad.

And Muhammed’s barrister, Simon Lane, suggested to him that he viewed his sibling as a ‘bit of a cuckoo’ when he returned to the family nest after things thawed with his mum and dad.

Ahmed said that, as a young man, his older brother failed to fulfil his parents’ expectations and was ‘in their bad books’.

However, Mr Lane put to him: ‘Your brother became a bit of a cuckoo from your point of view, didn’t he? He came in and he was doing what you thought you should be doing?’

‘Not at all,’ replied Ahmed.

The barrister suggested Ahmed felt Muhammed had become their parents’ favourite and was given a pivotal role in handling the property empire, adding that Abdul trusted Muhammed while Ahmed was ‘frozen out of the conversation about what would happen to these properties’.

‘I disagree, he trusted each and every one of us,’ insisted Ahmed.

Jennifer Khan, one of the five siblings now battling her older brother Muhammed over their father’s £4.6million fortune is pictured arriving at London’s High Court 

But Mr Lane said Ahmed resented his brother because Muhammed ‘ended up with all the properties – that’s how you see it’, also suggesting that Muhammed had helped Ahmed out by letting him run the rental side of the business.

‘I disagree,’ he replied.

Setting out the five siblings’ case, Mr East insisted that a binding deal was done at a ‘family meeting’ in 2004 when it was agreed that each of the three sons would receive a one-third split of the family’s expanding property venture.

Under that agreement, Muhammed would run the new family nursery business in Norbury Crescent, Norbury – while Ahmed would run the residential letting side of the business.

Muhammed had helped by providing mortgage finance to help his dad buy the new nursery property and was to hold the property ‘on trust’ for his siblings, said Mr East.

But Muhammed ‘disputes the existence’ of the agreement, claiming that his brothers have invented the ‘fictitious’ 2004 meeting.

He says the truth is that he ended up bailing out his mum and dad at the time because they were in financial difficulties, buying one of his properties off Abdul and also paying off some of his debts.

But Mr East told the court: ‘The claimants say that Muhammed’s story simply does not add up. It is, in any event, inconsistent with the idea of Abdul and Fatima to benefit all of their children with their hard-won wealth – not just Muhammed, whose relationship with them had been very poor previously.’

The trial continues.