Aamna Taseer v Shaan Taseer
| Jurisdiction | Singapore |
| Judgment Date | 10 February 2012 |
| Date | 10 February 2012 |
| Docket Number | Originating Summons No 866 of 2011 |
| Court | High Court (Singapore) |
Choo Han Teck J
Originating Summons No 866 of 2011
High Court
Land—Caveats—Removal—Beneficiaries of unadministered estate lodging caveat against property of estate—Whether beneficiaries of unadministered estate had caveatable interest in property of estate
The deceased bought a property in his and the plaintiff's names. The plaintiff was the deceased's second wife. The deceased died. The defendants lodged a caveat against the property, claiming that they are beneficiaries to the deceased's unadministered estate and consequently have an interest in the property since they were the three children from the earlier marriage between the deceased and his first wife. The plaintiff filed an application seeking an order for the defendants to remove the caveat.
Held, granting the application:
(1) Beneficiaries of an unadministered estate did not have a caveatable interest in the property of the estate: at [6].
(2) Only persons who had a direct interest in a property would have a caveatable interest in that property. The defendants only had a share in the assets of the unadministered estate. Their claim was for a portion of the value of the estate and not any specific property of the estate: at [6].
Gangemi v Gangemi [2009] WASC 195 (folld)
Guardian, Trust, and Executors Company of New Zealand, Ltd v Hall [1938] NZLR 1020 (folld)
Savage's Caveat, Re [1956] NZLR 118 (folld)
Wong Moy v Soo Ah Choy [1996] 3 SLR (R) 27; [1996] 3 SLR 398 (distd)
Daniel Chia and Emily Choo (Stamford Law Corporation) for the plaintiff
Sim Bock Eng, Chloe Lee and Joel Chng (Wong Partnership LLP) for the defendants.
Judgment reserved.
Choo Han Teck J1 Salman Taseer, the Governor of Punjab, was assassinated on 4 January 2011. He was a Sunni Muslim and a citizen of Pakistan, as is his widow and second wife Aamna Taseer, the plaintiff. They have three children aged between 22 and 28. Salman Taseer divorced his first wife in 1983. The defendants are the three children from his marriage to the first wife. Salman Taseer's estate is the subject of litigation in Pakistan, and the defendants have obtained an injunction from the Pakistani Court restraining the plaintiff from disposing of all assets of Salman Taseer's estate until further order. The Pakistani Court order dated 29 September 2011 concluded with this qualification:
However, this order shall not be prejudiced...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Shaan Taseer v Aamna Taseer
-
Mahidon Nichiar bte Mohd Ali v Dawood Sultan Kamaldin
...or manifest any principle of law that allowed for the invalidation of an instrument: at [190] to [194] .] Aamna Taseer v Shaan Taseer [2012] 2 SLR 348 (refd) Alwie Handoyo v Tjong Very Sumito [2013] 4 SLR 308 (folld) Bank of America National Trust and Savings Association v Herman Iskandar [......
-
Foo Jee Boo and another v Foo Jhee Tuang and another (Foo Jee Seng, intervener)
...at [11]. Indeed, I note in passing that this proposition of law was affirmed by the High Court in Aamna Taseer v Shaan Taseer and others [2012] 2 SLR 348 at [6], where the court held that a beneficiary of an unadministered estate did not have any direct, caveatable interest in the assets of......
-
Shanti Harilal Rama v. Bhagwat Harilal Rama
...were shown and she was allowed to bring to action as a beneficiary. 14. The High Court in Aamna Taseer v Shaan Taseer and others [2012] 2 SLR 348, held that a beneficiary of an unadministered estate did not have any direct, caveatable interest in the assets of the unadministered 15. In Lee ......
-
Land Law
...as beneficiaries of the estate, lodged a caveat against the property. On application by the respondent (Aamna Taseer v Shaan Taseer[2012] 2 SLR 348), the High Court made an order that the caveat be removed. 20.50 The appellants appealed against the decision of the High Court. However, they ......