Chua Kah Wee and Others v Chua Geok Eng

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: Chua F A J
• Judgment Date: 31 May 1968
• Neutral Citation: [1968] SGHC 16
• Docket Number: Suit No 823 of 1965
• Date: 31 May 1968
• Published date: 19 September 2003
• Year: 1968
• Plaintiff Counsel: KA O'Connor (Drew & Napier)
• Citation: [1968] SGHC 16
• Defendant Counsel: CH Smith (Laycock & Ong)
• Court: High Court (Singapore)
• Subject Matter: Constitution,Whether held on trust for father during his lifetime,Whether trust was for an illegal purpose,Defendant denying that property held on trust and claiming a property absolutely,Property conveyed by father to four children as tenants in common,Trusts,Purchase price and income tax due on the property paid by father,Express trusts,Title deeds held by father

The plaintiffs in this case claim as trustees of the property known as Lot 69 TS XXIV Singapore (hereinafter called `the Rochalie Drive property`) against the defendant as co-trustee of the Rochalie Drive property and personally for:

(1) A declaration that the Rochalie Drive property now standing in the names of the plaintiffs and the defendant as tenants in common in equal shares is held by them on trust for their father Chua Cheow Tien for life with remainder to the said Chua Cheow Tien`s ten children or their estates as tenants in common absolutely.

(2) Removal of the defendant as trustee of the Rochalie Drive property.

(3) All consequent and necessary vesting and other orders in respect of the Rochalie Drive property.

In the statement of claim it is pleaded that on 26 August 1953 Chua Cheow Tien, the father of the parties to these proceedings, conveyed the Rochalie Drive property to his four eldest children namely, the first and second plaintiffs, Chua Poh Keow (since deceased) and the defendant as tenants in common in equal shares on the express trust and understanding that the said four children would hold the property on trust for their father for life with remainder to the ten children of the said Chua Cheow Tien by his first wife.

In her defence the defendant admits that Chua Cheow Tien conveyed the Rochalie Drive property to the plaintiffs and to her as tenants in common in equal shares. She, however, denies that the said conveyance was on any trust, express or otherwise or on any understanding, either as alleged in the statement of claim or at all. She pleads that the said conveyance was for a consideration of $53,000 and that she paid to Chua Cheow Tien one-fourth of the said sum namely $13,250. The defendant counterclaims for a declaration that she is beneficially entitled to one undivided one-fourth share in the Rochalie Drive property free from encumbrances and free from any trust either express or otherwise.

Chua Cheow Tien`s evidence was shortly this. He has nine daughter and one son by his first wife Yap Kim Neo, who died in 1948. The first and second plaintiffs, Chua Poh Keow and the defendant are four of his daughters by his first wife. In 1948 he bought the Rochalie Drive property for $53,000. On 11 June 1953 he held a memorial ceremony for his late mother at his house. All the nine daughters by his first wife were present. He told his nine daughters of his desire to give away the Rochalie Drive property to the ten children by his first wife. It is best that I set out in full what he said to his daughters:

I told my nine daughters present that I desired to give away my property No 2 Rochalie Drive to my ten children by my first wife in equal shares after my death and that during my life time this property was to be held in trust for the said ten children by four of them - the defendant, Chua Kah Wee, Chua Kah Bin and Chua Poh Keow. I further told them that during my life time I would reserve the liberty for myself to dispose of this property either by sale or by mortgage or by any other way necessary. All the children present agreed to these conditions and in fact this property had been mortgaged subsequently, twice up to date.

On 26 August 1953 he conveyed the Rochalie Drive property to his four daughters as tenants in common. The consideration stated in the conveyance was $53,000 but in fact he did not receive any money. The stamp fees and the solicitors` fees for the conveyance were paid by him. He kept the title deeds and collected the rents from the property and he paid the assessment. He gave his daughters money to pay the income tax due on the property. At first he gave $400 cash per annum to the defendant`s husband to pay the income tax but later he got his daughter Chua Kah Wee to make out cheques in favour of the defendant. Chua Poh Keow died in 1957 and letters of administration were granted to her husband Chia Kian Pang, the third plaintiff. In 1959 Tian Hup & Co Ltd of which he was (and still is) a director and principal shareholder entered into a contract with the Commander-in-Chief. Far East Land Forces, Singapore, and the United Chinese Bank Ltd guaranteed the due fulfilment and performance by Tian Hup & Co Ltd of all the terms and conditions of the contract between Tian Hup & Co Ltd and the Commander-in-Chief and the payment for all losses and damages. On 21 October 1959 the plaintiffs and the defendant at his request mortgaged the Rochalie Drive property to the United Chinese Bank Ltd to keep the bank indemnified against all actions, proceedings, liability, claims, damages, costs and expenses in relation to or arising out of the guarantee which the bank had signed. In 1960 Tian Hup & Co Ltd entered into a similar contract with the Commander-in-Chief, Far East Land Forces, Singapore, and the United Chinese Bank Ltd gave a similar guarantee. On 30 September 1960 the plaintiffs and the defendant at his request again mortgaged the Rochalie Drive property to the United Chinese Bank Ltd for a similar purpose. In 1963 he negotiated to sell the Rochalie Drive property to the Singapore Trading Co Ltd for $300,000. He spoke to his daughters and promised to pay each of his ten children by his first wife $10,000 out of the proceeds of sale. The first, second and third plaintiffs agreed to the sale and signed the agreement of sale but the defendant refused to sign. On 13 September 1963 on his instructions his solicitors wrote to the defendant stating that the Rochalie Drive property was held by the defendant on trust for her father and requesting her to attend at the solicitors` office to sign the agreement of sale but by letter of 20 September 1963 signed by the defendant she denied the allegations contained in the letter which was sent to her. On 25 March 1964 his solicitors again wrote to the defendant stating that she held the property on trust for her father and requesting her to confirm that the property was held on trust so that the sale of the property could be proceeded with. By letter of 8 April 1964 the defendant denied that the property was held by her on trust for her father. On 11 January 1965 the defendant`s solicitors wrote to his solicitors saying that they had gone into the matter fully and had advised the defendant that she was entitled to one-fourth share of the Rochalie Drive property.

The first and second plaintiffs, and Chua Ah Lian and Chua Ah Sye, two other daughters of Chua Cheow Tien by his first wife, gave evidence, and they all supported the evidence of their father. The first plaintiff, Chua Kah Wee, further said that the defendant asked her father for $400 each year to pay the income tax due on the Rochalie Drive property. At first cash was given to the defendant but fearing that the defendant would deny having received the money so her father asked her to issue cheques to the defendant. (Five cheques were produced in court, each for $400 and signed by her in Chinese and made out in favour of the defendant and were issued in November 1959, May 1960, April 1961, March 1962 and March 1963.) Her father reimbursed her later.

Another witness gave evidence about these cheques. He was Teo Yeow Hong, the husband of the second plaintiff. His evidence was this. He was a director of Guan Choon & Co Ltd and a shareholder of Lian Hup Tobacco Co Ltd. The defendant`s husband brought to him the cheque of November 1959. It had already been endorsed by `Chua Gek Eng`. The defendants husband asked him to exchange the cheque for cash. He telephoned Lian Hup Tobacco Co Ltd and asked them to exchange the cheque for cash and told the defendant`s husband to go there. The cheques of May 1960, April 1961, March 1962 and March 1963 were brought to him by the defendant`s husband. The cheques had been endorsed by `Chua Gek Eng`. The defendant`s husband asked him to exchange the cheques for cash. He gave the defendant`s husband $400 on each occasion and paid the cheque into the bank account of Guan Choon & Co Ltd.

The defendant`s evidence was shortly this. In 1953 she lived at 239A New Bridge Road, Singapore, which was on the first floor. The ground floor of the building, No 239, was occupied by See Huat & Co in which her husband was a partner with three others. In 1953...