Leash to Legacy: Pets as Beneficiaries of Their Owner’s Estate

Although Indian law does not currently allow pets to inherit directly, thoughtful estate planning whether through appointed guardians, NGOs, public trusts or private shelters named in a will, can still provide protection

This article examines the legal challenges preventing pets from directly inheriting property in India, where they are not recognised as legal persons. It explores the current use of wills to appoint guardians or organisations as custodians of the pet and for the funds allocated for their care. It proceeds to advocate for legal reforms, such as recognising pet trusts and to better align the law with the evolving societal view of pets as family members.

The global pet industry is projected to grow from $320 billion today to nearly $500 billion by 2030, according to Bloomberg Intelligence.1 In India, pet ownership has seen a marked increase, with 32 million pets residing in Indian households as of FY24 as against 26 million pets as of FY192. Evolving urban family structures characterised by nuclear family sizes, rising disposable incomes, and evolving social norms have increasingly positioned pets as surrogate family members, particularly for couples without children.3 The COVID-19 pandemic further accelerated this trend, with many households adopting or rescuing animals to meet the heightened need for companionship.4

Spending on pets in India has mirrored this shift. In 2024, Indians spent $3.6 billion on pet products and services, up from $1.6 billion in 2019.5 While in the start of the 21st century, pet care was limited to basic services like vaccination and veterinary care, today, pet owners want all available and reliable specialised services for their pets and are willing to spend a significant portion of their income on raising the pet.

While owners of pets in today’s times give them a status of family members, their legal recognition in certain jurisdictions, including India, remains limited. Owners are increasingly confronted with a pressing question: what happens to their pets after they pass away? This concern naturally leads to questions on whether one can leave inheritance to pets so as to ensure that they are not stranded after their owner’s death.

Indian Legal Landscape: Pets and Inheritance

Legal provisions for animal welfare are primarily captured under the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960. Section 3 imposes a duty on persons in charge of an animal to ensure its well-being and prevent unnecessary suffering6. Indian courts have increasingly affirmed the rights of animals to dignity and protection. For instance, in Animal Welfare Board of India v. Nagaraja,7 the Supreme Court recognised that the right to dignity under Article 21 extends to animals.

Despite laws on dignity and protection, neither the legislature nor the judiciary anticipated individuals wanting to leave their estate to their pets. In India, intestate succession is governed by personal laws, while testamentary succession is addressed under the Indian Succession Act, 1925. Succession laws in India contemplate bequests being made in favour of “persons”. “Persons” are broadly defined under the General Clauses Act, 1897, to include any company or association or body of individuals, whether incorporated or not8. Similarly, the Indian Trusts Act, 1882, limits beneficiaries under a trust to entities capable of holding property9. As animals do not fall within the definition of “persons” and cannot hold property, they cannot be named as beneficiaries under such laws or a trust.

Further, under the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, the ‘transfer of property’ is defined as an act by which a living person conveys property to one or more other living persons, or to himself, or to himself and one or more other living persons. Similar to the General Clauses Act, 1897, here “living person” refers to a company or association or body of individuals, whether incorporated or not.

Further, the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, in its provisions on theft in relation to movable property, expressly categorises animals as movable property by way of an explanation.10 This classification reinforces the position that animals do not possess legal personhood and cannot directly hold or inherit property under Indian law.

Where there is a Will, is there a way?

In the absence of specific law governing this aspect, Indian pet owners have used wills as a means to secure their pets’ welfare after their demise. When leaving inheritance to their pets through wills, pet owners designate either an individual guardian or a recognised animal welfare organisation (i.e. private shelter, charitable trust or similar entity capable of professionally looking after the pet) as custodians of the pet.11 This essentially results in setting up of a notional trust where the guardian or the organisation are required to hold and apply the allocated funds for the sole benefit of the pet.

Having said the above, we could recommend that the will also makes further stipulations such as the manner in which the funds are to be used, and other daily requirements for the upkeep of the animal, which the guardian/organisation must know, as well as ensuring that there is a clear succession pattern which provides for what is to happen to any balance funds after the demise of the pet.

In case of individuals as caretakers, it becomes crucial that the guardian appointed is trustworthy and will attempt to fulfil the testator’s wishes to the best of his capability. A successor caretaker must also be named to ensure continuity in case the primary caretaker is unable or unwilling to fulfil their role.

In the case of organisations as custodians, the testator may simultaneously enter into agreements with such organizations to ensure that their wishes are understood and can be implemented successfully. Many organisations also offer legacy programs i.e. a predetermined arrangement for care for the pet after the owner’s demise. While these agreements may be difficult to enforce post the owner’s demise, they help guide the executors of the will of the owner’s wishes and vision for their pet.

A recent example of a will being used as a method to protect the pet is the case of the Indian billionaire, Mr. Ratan Tata, who reportedly bequeathed INR. 12 lakhs to his German Shepherd, Tito, in his will, through his cook as a legal guardian.12

In another notable case from Madhya Pradesh, a 50-year-old farmer, bequeathed half of his ancestral property to his pet dog, Jacky, under a will due to ongoing family disputes. Interestingly, the will stipulated that anyone who takes care of Jacky would inherit the dog’s share.13 While this will has not been validated by the court, it does ensure a complete succession plan by provisioning for a final beneficiary.

Global Case Studies: Pets and their Fortune

Globally, legal systems are increasingly recognising pets as sentient beings rather than mere property. Many cases have been highlighted in the media over the years be it Michael Jackson’s pet monkey, Bubbles who reportedly continues to be supported in a sanctuary in Florida through funds from Michael Jackson’s estate14, or Karl Lagerfeld’s cat, Choupette, who has reportedly inherited a large fortune under his will and is taken care of by Choupette’s designated caretaker.15

While wills as mentioned above continue to be the most effective tools for owners to include pets in their succession plan, courts in the United Kingdon and New York, among others, have given recognition to pet trusts as an alternate mechanism to plan for such succession.

Re Dean is regarded as a landmark English decision for addressing whether a non-charitable trust created solely for the benefit of animals can be valid under trust law. The court upheld a direction in the will requiring funds to be used for the maintenance of the testator’s horses and hounds, confirming that such a trust though neither charitable nor enforceable by a human beneficiary could still be recognised as a “narrow exception” to the beneficiary principle. The judgment clarified that such trusts are valid only where the purpose is specific and certain, the animals or class of animals are identifiable, and the duration is limited so as not to violate the rule against perpetuity.16

Similarly, in New York, Leona Helmsley left US$12 million in a trust for her dog Trouble. Her grandchildren challenged the will. The court gave a ruling of conditional acceptance stating that the pet trust was valid but the resources dedicated to it had to be proportionate to the animal’s needs (food, medical care, security, grooming, life expectancy). The court held the amount to be excessive and reduced it to US$2 million, redirecting the remaining US$10 million to Helmsley’s charitable trust.17 Later on Trouble’s death, all remaining trust funds reverted to charitable or residuary beneficiaries under the estate plan.18

While there are examples of successful global stories where owners thoughtfully included pets in their succession planning, there are parallel examples of misuse of legal structures and lack of oversight. For instance, in the case of Gunther, the world’s richest dog, what appeared to be an extraordinary case of inheritance for a dog was, in fact, a structure used to conceal ownership and reduce tax liability through complex foreign trusts.19 It thus becomes important to plan carefully and have legislative/judicial safeguards to serve the pet’s best interests.

Reform Considerations in India

The current Indian legal landscape is unable to provide the certainty and security that modern pet owners seek. The route discussed above only creates a notional trust with no one to supervise and the beneficiaries in question being incapable of enforcing their rights. Reform in the law is required to bridge the gap between the emotional status of pets as family and their legal status as property.

Possible changes could include recognising pet trusts with similar requirements as seen from the cases in the UK or New York i.e. making them time bound by limiting the trust’s duration to the pet’s lifetime, adding an ultimate beneficiary who receives the remaining estate after the pet, appointing credible caretakers and ensuring financial transparency. If such trusts were permissible to be set up in the owner’s lifetime, the owner would have an opportunity to supervise its functioning, assess its effectiveness, and train the caretaker by onboarding them as trustees from the outset. This would also eliminate the need to depend on the executor of the will to implement the structure after death. Such reforms would make the law clearer for executors and courts, reduce the chances of misuse, offer greater peace of mind to pet owners, and align with the growing view of pets as family rather than property.

Conclusion

As pets become an integral part of family life, ensuring their care after an owner’s death has become a practical concern rather than a sentimental one. Although Indian law does not currently allow pets to inherit directly, thoughtful estate planning whether through appointed guardians, NGOs, public trusts or private shelters named in a will, can still provide protection. With global developments increasingly recognising the interest of pets, one can hope that India, in time, evolves its legal framework to reflect these changing social and emotional realities.

Disclaimer – The views expressed in this article are the personal views of the authors and are purely informative in nature.