Salaya Kalairani and another v Appangam Govindhasamy and others

Mdm Tey Siew Choon and Mr T Govindasamy (TG), who had informally adopted her as his daughter after her husband's death, bought 24 Cuff Road for $40,000 as tenants-in-common in equal shares on 28 May 1970. TG died on 10 October 1993. Tey then took powers of attorney to his family in India so that she could obtain letters of administration and sell his property, especially the upper floor, but one son refused to sign the second and revoked the first. Tey collected the rent for years. Her will left her "share" of the property to her daughter, Mdm Salaya Kalairani, who became registered co-owner with TG after Tey died on 24 May 2015.

TG's children and grandchildren, as administrators of his estate, sued Kalairani in HC/S 107/2022 for sale of the property and an account of rent. She counterclaimed that TG had held his half on resulting or common intention constructive trust for Tey. The High Court ordered a sale with the proceeds split equally, dismissed the counterclaim and the defence of acquiescence, and held the claim for rent barred by laches. Kalairani appealed in AD/CA 117/2022 and the estate appealed on the rent in AD/CA 118/2022.

1. Whether TG held his registered half-share on a resulting or common intention constructive trust for Tey, and whether indefeasibility of title barred that argument.
2. Whether acquiescence prevented the estate from seeking a sale, and whether the property should be partitioned rather than sold.
3. Whether the estate was entitled to an account of rent, and whether laches, acquiescence or limitation applied.

The estate's new argument that s 46(2) of the Land Titles Act excluded resulting and constructive trusts was rejected; the subsection preserves rights rather than listing them exhaustively, and such trusts are well established for registered land. On the facts, there was no evidence that Tey paid the whole price; TG had a responsible job and assets, and there was no reason to name him a co-owner otherwise. The documents also pointed against a common intention trust: both had taken joint liability on later mortgages, the powers of attorney treated the upper floor as TG's, Tey's will referred to her "share", and she never sought a transfer.

Applying the definition in Ho Yew Kong v Sakae Holdings Ltd and other appeals and other matters [2018] 2 SLR 333, acquiescence can answer a statutory claim but requires conduct founding an estoppel, waiver or abandonment, not mere delay. The alleged acknowledgment at TG's funeral was unproven and inconsistent with the later powers of attorney. Partition was unpleaded and unsuitable given the parties' poor relations, so sale was right.

On rent, mere co-ownership did not create an equitable duty to account, and the old English case relied on was doubted. But the pleaded facts supported a claim under s 73A of the Conveyancing and Law of Property Act, which the estate was allowed to rely on late because the law need not be pleaded and no further evidence was needed. Laches does not apply to statutory claims, and in any case its basis had not been pleaded. Despite 28 years without a demand, there was no representation or reliance to found acquiescence. Fairness required that Kalairani be allowed to plead the six-year limitation period in s 6(2) of the Limitation Act, which the estate accepted, so the account ran from six years before the action was filed. The estate's weak and late new arguments were reflected in the costs.

The Appellate Division dismissed Kalairani's appeal and allowed the estate's appeal in part. The sale was upheld with amended directions, and Kalairani was ordered to account for rent received from 24 September 2015 and pay the estate half of it after deducting reasonable expenses, being liable in both her personal and representative capacities. She was ordered to pay costs of both appeals fixed at $45,000, including disbursements.