SALAYA KALAIRANI & Anor v APPANGAM GOVINDHASAMY & 3 Ors

Q: Which legislation does [2023] SGHC(A) 40 consider?

The judgment refers to Companies Act (Cap 50), Conveyancing and Law of Property Act (Cap 61), Court of Appeal considered acquiescence as a defence against a claim for patent infringement under the Patents Act (Cap 221), and High Court judge also considered that acquiescence could function as a defence against a statutory claim under the Sale of Goods Act (Cap 393), among other provisions. The statutes cited are listed in full on this page, each linking to its primary text.

[2023] SGHC(A) 40 High Court (Appellate Division) 7 December 2023 AD/CA 118/2022 · AD/CA 117/2022 45 min read

18 cases cited (17 SG, 1 foreign) Cited by 5 cases

Key facts

Court	High Court (Appellate Division)
Decided	7 December 2023
Judges	Andre Maniam, Valerie Thean, Woo Bih Li
Charges / claim	Equity, Civil Procedure, Trusts
Counsel	Allen & Gledhill LLP, CNPLaw LLP, Davinder Singh Chambers LLC, I.R.B. Law LLP, Chan Tai-Hui, Jason, Jaikanth Shankar, Joel Wee Tze Sing, Joshua Chow Shao Wei, Loh Kah Yunn, Megan Chua, Mohamed Baiross, Shann Liew, Stanley Tan Jun Hao, Tan Ruo Yu

Source: [2023] SGHC(A) 40, High Court (Appellate Division), decided 7 December 2023 — eLitigation. Updated 10 July 2026.

Catchwords

Equity — Defences — Laches Civil Procedure — Limitation Equity — Defences — Acquiescence Trusts — Resulting trusts — Presumed resulting trusts Trusts — Constructive trusts — Common intention constructive trusts

Practice Areas

Equity Civil Procedure Trusts

Judges (3)

Andre Maniam Coram Valerie Thean Delivered Woo Bih Li Coram

Counsel (14)

Allen & Gledhill LLP Firm CNPLaw LLP Firm Davinder Singh Chambers LLC Firm I.R.B. Law LLP Firm Chan Tai-Hui, Jason Counsel Appellant Jaikanth Shankar Counsel Respondent Joel Wee Tze Sing Counsel Appellant Joshua Chow Shao Wei Counsel Respondent Loh Kah Yunn Counsel Appellant Megan Chua Counsel Appellant Mohamed Baiross Counsel Respondent Shann Liew Counsel Appellant Stanley Tan Jun Hao Counsel Respondent Tan Ruo Yu Counsel Respondent

Parties (6)

Appangam Govindhasamy (legal representative of the estate of T Govindasamy, deceased) Respondent Kalaichelvi C w/o Chidambaram M (co-administrator of the estate of T Govindasamy, deceased) Respondent Salaya Kalairani Appellant Salaya Kalairani (legal representative of the estate of Tey Siew Choon, deceased) Appellant Selvadurai Manickam (co-administrator of the estate of T Govindasamy, deceased) Respondent Subbaiyan Govindasamy (legal representative of the estate of T Govindasamy, deceased) Respondent

Case Significance

Salaya Kalairani v Appangam Govindhasamy [2023] SGHC(A) 40 was a decision of the Appellate Division of the High Court, with Valerie Thean J delivering the judgment alongside Andre Maniam J and Woo Bih Li JAD, in Civil Appeal No 117 of 2022 arising from Suit No 107 of 2022. The dispute pitted representatives of the estate of Tey Siew Choon against representatives and co-administrators of the estate of T Govindasamy over property said to be held on trust. The court examined presumed resulting trusts and common intention constructive trusts alongside the equitable defences of laches and acquiescence and limitation under the Limitation Act. The case, decided on 7 December 2023, cites 18 authorities and has been cited five times.

[2023] SGHC(A) 40 explained

SALAYA KALAIRANI & Anor v APPANGAM GOVINDHASAMY & 3 Ors ([2023] SGHC(A) 40) is a Singapore judgment decided by the High Court (Appellate Division) on 7 December 2023. It is categorised under Equity, Civil Procedure, and Trusts. Within this corpus it has since been cited by 5 other reported Singapore judgments, a measure of how often later decisions have referred to it. This page summarises what the reported decision covers and links the primary sources — the full judgment, the statutes it cites, and the other cases it engages with — so the decision can be read in context. It is reference information, not legal advice, and it does not state the outcome or any holding beyond what the official judgment records.

What is [2023] SGHC(A) 40 about?

SALAYA KALAIRANI & Anor v APPANGAM GOVINDHASAMY & 3 Ors ([2023] SGHC(A) 40) is a High Court (Appellate Division) decision from 2023. Its published catchwords are “Equity — Defences — Laches”, “Civil Procedure — Limitation”, “Equity — Defences — Acquiescence”, and “Trusts — Resulting trusts — Presumed resulting trusts”, which indicate the subject matter the judgment addresses. The full reasoning and orders are in the judgment itself, linked below.

Which legislation does [2023] SGHC(A) 40 consider?

The judgment refers to Companies Act (Cap 50), Conveyancing and Law of Property Act (Cap 61), Court of Appeal considered acquiescence as a defence against a claim for patent infringement under the Patents Act (Cap 221), and High Court judge also considered that acquiescence could function as a defence against a statutory claim under the Sale of Goods Act (Cap 393), among other provisions. The statutes cited are listed in full on this page, each linking to its primary text.

What earlier Singapore cases does [2023] SGHC(A) 40 cite?

Among the in-corpus authorities it refers to are [2023] SGCA 21 and [2023] SGHC 91. The complete list of cases cited, and of later cases that cite this decision, is shown on this page.

How influential is [2023] SGHC(A) 40?

Within this corpus, [2023] SGHC(A) 40 has been cited by 5 later reported Singapore judgments. That count reflects references from other decisions held in this corpus only and is a conservative lower bound on how often the case has actually been cited.

What issues did Salaya Kalairani v Appangam Govindhasamy [2023] SGHC(A) 40 address?

The Appellate Division of the High Court considered presumed resulting trusts, common intention constructive trusts, limitation, and the equitable defences of laches and acquiescence, in a property dispute between representatives of the estates of Tey Siew Choon and T Govindasamy, decided 7 December 2023.

Who decided the appeal in Salaya Kalairani v Appangam Govindhasamy ([2023] SGHC(A) 40)?

The Appellate Division panel comprised Valerie Thean J, who delivered the judgment, with Andre Maniam J and Woo Bih Li JAD. They heard Civil Appeal No 117 of 2022, which arose from Suit No 107 of 2022, and decided it on 7 December 2023.

Statutes Cited

Companies Act (Cap 50) Cases on this Act →

s 216

Conveyancing and Law of Property Act (Cap 61) Cases on this Act →

s 73A

Court of Appeal considered acquiescence as a defence against a claim for patent infringement under the Patents Act (Cap 221) Cases on this Act →

High Court judge also considered that acquiescence could function as a defence against a statutory claim under the Sale of Goods Act (Cap 393) Cases on this Act →

Land Titles Act (Cap 157) Cases on this Act →

Limitation Act (Cap 163) Cases on this Act →

s 4 s 6(2)

Property on trust for Tey because of the indefeasibility of title under the Land Titles Act (Cap 157) Cases on this Act →

Cases Cited (18)

SG (3)

[2011] SGHC 30 [2023] SGCA 21 [2023] SGHC 91

SLR (14)

[1999] 2 SLR(R) 287 [2000] 3 SLR(R) 530 [2006] 4 SLR(R) 884 [2008] 2 SLR(R) 108 [2010] 1 SLR 286 [2010] 4 SLR 123 [2014] 3 SLR 1048 [2014] 3 SLR 663 [2016] 2 SLR 464 [2016] 3 SLR 1222 [2018] 1 SLR 317 [2018] 1 SLR 43 [2018] 2 SLR 333 [2022] 5 SLR 451

HK (1)

[2021] HKCFA 19