APPANGAM GOVINDHASAMY & 3 Ors v SALAYA KALAIRANI & Anor

Facts

On 28 May 1970, Mdm Tey Siew Choon and Mr T Govindasamy (TG) bought a shophouse at 24 Cuff Road for $40,000 as tenants-in-common in equal shares. Tey had been widowed in 1969 with four young children; TG, a close friend of her late husband, informally adopted her family. Tey later mortgaged the property to Maybank three times, with TG as surety. TG died on 10 October 1993. Tey then obtained a power of attorney from some of TG's family, drafted by her lawyer, to take out letters of administration and sell TG's property, especially 24A Cuff Road. A second draft in 1995 went unsigned and the first was revoked in 1996. Tey's 2002 will left her "share" in the property to her daughter, Mdm Salaya Kalairani. Tey died on 24 May 2015.

In Suit No 107 of 2022, TG's sons and grandchildren, as administrators, sought a sale and an account of rent since TG's death. Mdm Salaya, personally and as executrix, counterclaimed that TG held his half-share on a resulting trust, or a common intention constructive trust, for Tey, alleging that Tey paid the whole price and put TG on title only to act as her surety. Chua Lee Ming J heard the case.

Issues

1. Whether TG held his half-share on a presumed resulting trust for Tey because she paid the full purchase price
2. Whether TG held his half-share on a common intention constructive trust for Tey
3. Whether the plaintiffs' claim was barred by acquiescence and their claim for an account of rent barred by laches
4. Whether the property should be sold or partitioned

Holding

The court dismissed the counterclaim, so TG's half-share stays in his estate, and allowed the plaintiffs' claim in part. The property is to be sold on the open market and the net proceeds shared equally between the two estates, with the defendants given a first option to buy TG's half-share at a licensed valuer's valuation. The claim for an account of rent was dismissed as barred by laches. The defendants were ordered to pay costs fixed at $130,000 plus disbursements, on the indemnity basis after 6 June 2022, because they had rejected better settlement offers.

Reasoning

On the resulting trust, TG's registered title shifted the burden to the defendants to prove Tey paid the full price. There was no direct evidence of payment. The judge found no basis to infer that Tey, a young widow running a home meal business, could pay it all in 1970, or that TG could not pay his half. Evidence of TG's work, loans and assets in India contradicted Mdm Salaya's account of him as poor and dependent. The surety explanation was illogical, since the property itself was the security. The powers of attorney, contemplating sale of TG's share for his heirs, and the will's reference to Tey's "share" pointed the other way. Mdm Salaya was found not credible.

On the constructive trust, applying Chan Yuen Lan v See Fong Mun [2014] 3 SLR 1048, the pleaded factors did not show a shared intention that Tey would own TG's half. The restaurant, the surety role and the title deeds were neutral, and the judge found it more likely than not that TG had lived at the property. Claims that TG asked Tey to take back his share, and that his sons agreed in 2018 to transfer it, were rejected, the latter as a fabrication. An adverse inference was drawn from the failure to call Mdm Salaya's surviving brother.

The acquiescence defence was unclear and contradicted by the documents. But TG's family did nothing about the rent from the 1996 revocation until after 2018, making an account back to 1993 inequitable.

Partition was refused because the relationship had broken down and URA conservation guidelines did not allow strata subdivision of shophouses in the Little India Historic District.

From the judgment