Chua Cheow Tien v Chua Geok Eng and Another

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judgment Date: 31 May 1968
• Date: 31 May 1968
• Docket Number: Suit No 824 of 1965
• Court: High Court (Singapore)

Chua Cheow Tien

Plaintiff

and

Chua Geok Eng and another

Defendant

[1968] SGHC 15

F A Chua J

Suit No 824 of 1965

High Court

Trusts–Resulting trusts–Presumed resulting trusts–Father buying property and placing it in names of wife and daughter–Father receiving rent and paying property tax–Wife and daughter voluntarily mortgaging property at father's request and for his benefit–Father claiming property held in trust for him–Whether presumption that legal and beneficial ownership lay with wife and daughter rebutted

The plaintiff brought an action for a declaration that a piece of land registered in the name of the defendants, his daughter and wife, was held by them in trust for him. It was not disputed that the plaintiff paid the purchase monies for the property, received rents and paid the property tax.

The property was voluntarily mortgaged twice by the defendants at the request of the plaintiff and for his benefit. There were disputes between the parties as to who had held the title deeds to the property and paid the income tax due on it. The plaintiff adduced evidence in the form of a letter signed by the defendants authorising the sale of the property and acknowledging that the surplus remaining after discharge of the mortgage should be returned to the plaintiff. A conveyance for the transfer of the property back to the plaintiff was also signed by the second defendant. The defendants counterclaimed for a declaration that they were beneficially entitled to one-half share each in the property, alleging that the property had been conveyed to them as a gift from the plaintiff. The second defendant claimed that she was not aware of the contents of the conveyance at the time she affixed her thumbprint to the document.

Held, allowing the plaintiff's claim and dismissing the counterclaim:

(1) On the evidence, the plaintiff had held the title deeds and paid the income tax on the property: at [22] and [23].

(2) The second defendant had affixed her thumbprint to the conveyance voluntarily in the presence of two witnesses after the contents had been explained to her: at [26].

(3) When a property was bought in the name of a child or a wife, there was a rebuttable presumption that the legal and beneficial ownership lay with the child or the wife. The onus was on those who sought to rebut the presumption to establish that the property was held on trust: at [28].

(4) Admissible evidence in rebuttal was limited to acts, circumstances and declarations leading to or forming part of the transaction or so immediately following and connected with it as in effect to be contemporaneous with or form part of it. Such admissible evidence could be used either for or against the party who did the act or made the declaration. Subsequent acts and declarations were admissible as evidence only against the party who did the act or made the declarations and not in his favour: at [30].

(5) The plaintiff was in fact exercising all the functions of an owner in collecting the rents and paying the property tax and income tax due on the property. The fact that he held the title deeds was a very significant factor in his favour. The acts of the defendants in mortgaging the property at his request and for his benefit, the act of the second defendant in signing the conveyance with full knowledge of the material facts and the letter acknowledging the return of the surplus to the plaintiff upon the discharge of the mortgage were also relevant considerations: at [34] to [38].

(6) The plaintiff had discharged the burden of rebutting the presumption of advancement and it had been established that the defendants held the property in trust for him: at [39].

Chua Kah Wee v Chua Geok Eng [1968-1970] SLR (R) 152 (refd)

Palaniappa Chettiar v Arunasalam Chettiar [1962] MLJ 143; [1962] AC 294; [1962] 1 All ER 494 (distd)

Scawin v Scawin (1841) 1 Y & CCC 65; 62 ER 792 (refd)

Shepherd v Cartwright [1955] AC 431 (folld)

Warren v Gurney [1944] 2 All ER 472 (refd)

K A O'Connor (Drew & Napier) for the plaintiff

C H Smith (Laycock & Ong) for the first defendant

R E Redrup (R E Redrup) for the second defendant.

F A Chua J

1 The plaintiff in this case is the father of the first defendant and the husband of the second defendant and he claims as beneficiary of the properties known as Lots 186-9, 186-22 and 186-25 of Mukim I, Singapore (hereinafter referred to as “the Tiong Bahru property”) against the defendants as co-trustees of the Tiong Bahru property and personally for:

(a) adeclaration that the Tiong Bahru property now standing in the names of the defendants as tenants in common in equal shares is held by them on trust for the plaintiff absolutely; and

(b) an order that the first defendant do join with the second defendant in conveying the Tiong Bahru property to the plaintiff or as he shall direct.

2 The defendants in their defence admit that the consideration for the conveyance of the Tiong Bahru property to them was paid by the plaintiff but say that the purpose of the plaintiff in placing the said property in their names jointly was in order to make a gift of the said property to them and they counterclaim:

(a) adeclaration that they are beneficially entitled to one-half share each in the said property;

(b) adeclaration that the plaintiff has no interest in the same property; and

(c) an account of the rents and profits of the said property.

3 The first defendant further counterclaims for an account of the rents and profits of 2 Rochalie Drive, Singapore, which was the subject matter in Chua Kah Wee v Chua Geok Eng [1968-1970] SLR (R) 152 in which the plaintiff was not a party but in whose interest the suit was brought against the first defendant. I will hereafter refer to it as the Rochalie Drive property.

4 The plaintiff's evidence was shortly this. He is now 70 years old. In 1951 he was the managing director and principal shareholder of Tian Hup Co Ltd (hereinafter referred to as “the company”). The company owned the Tiong Bahru property. At the beginning of 1951 he was ill (he was then 54 years old) and he thought of making provisions for his twenty-four children in case he should die. He had not yet made a will. He discussed the matter with the first defendant and the first defendant suggested that he transfer to her the Tiong Bahru property, which was a large property, so that each child's share would be substantial. He reflected over the matter and thought it wise to put the said property into the names of the first defendant and the second defendant. He then instructed his solicitor, P Y Tan, to prepare the conveyance accordingly but he did not inform his solicitor about the trust. He gave to his solicitor his personal cheque for $70,000 and this sum was eventually paid over to the company. In addition he paid the stamp fees and the solicitor's fees. The conveyance (Exh P1) was executed by him as director and by his son Chua Hong Tian as manager on behalf of the company. His solicitor then asked the two defendants to sign an acknowledgment that they had received the title deeds and they handed the title deeds to him. As regards the trust his evidence was as follows:

The two defendants came to my Wilkinson Road house and I told them that the property was conveyed to them in trust for me and in the event of my death the property was to be shared among the 24 children. I reserved the liberty to sell or mortgage or recover the property. They agreed to hold the property in trust for me in the presence of one or two of my children; these children heard what was...