Damayanti Kantilal Doshi and Another v Shobhana J Doshi

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judgment Date: 28 October 1997
• Date: 28 October 1997
• Docket Number: Suit No 707 of 1993
• Court: High Court (Singapore)

Damayanti Kantilal Doshi and another

Plaintiff

and

Shobhana J Doshi

Defendant

[1997] SGHC 272

MPH Rubin J

Suit No 707 of 1993

High Court

Family Law–Advancement–Presumption–Daughter-in-law and deceased father-in-law setting up trust account in joint names–Whether deceased placing himself in loco parentis to daughter-in-law to raise presumption of advancement in her favour–Trusts–Resulting trusts–Daughter-in-law and deceased father-in-law setting up trust account in joint names–Moneys in account contributed solely by father-in-law–Whether moneys belonging to deceased's estate–Circumstances in which account operated–Whether money gifted to daughter-in-law

The executors of the estate of the deceased Doshi claimed the sum of US$142,363.63 arising from a unit trust investment made in the joint names of the deceased and the defendant Shobhana, his daughter-in-law. The executors argued that the money should rightfully belong to the estate as the funds for the entire investment originated from the deceased. Further, they asserted that there was a presumption that Shobhana held the money in the unit trust account and the loan account on a resulting trust for the estate. They further asserted that the deceased never placed himself in loco parentis as regards Shobhana and as such there was no presumption of advancement or gift arising in her favour and urged the court to conclude that she was made a joint signatory only for convenience. Shobhana contended that the sum was a gift to her as her father-in-law doted on her, that the doctrine of survivorship applied, and that Doshi treated her as if she were his own daughter because she worked without any remuneration for the deceased's business. She denied that she was a mere nominee of the deceased for the money.

Held, allowing the claim:

(1) The presumption of advancement was only a prima facie presumption and might be rebutted by circumstances showing contrary intention. The love and affection reportedly showered on Shobhana by the deceased and the claim that he loved her like his own daughter were not by themselves sufficient to warrant the conclusion that the deceased was in loco parentis to her: at [30] and [31].

(2) Shobhana's evidence, when viewed in perspective, appeared highly suspect and lacked the requisite authenticity and conviction. Her pleading appeared to skirt around the issue whether the deceased intended the investment as a gift to her: at [40].

(3) The exchange of letters, the mode in which the unit trust and subsequent accounts were operated by the deceased suggested that in all probability the deceased included Shobhana in the unit trust account for purposes of convenience: at [42].

Calverly v Green (1984) 56 ALR 483 (refd)

Fowkes v Pascoe (1875) LR 10 Ch App 343 (refd)

Marshal v Crutwell (1875) LR 20 Eq 328 (refd)

Morley v Finney (1870) 18 WR 490 (refd)

Powys v Mansfield (1837) 3 My & Cr 359; 40 ER 964 (refd)

Young v Sealey [1949] Ch 278 (refd)

Wills Act 1837 (c 26) (UK)

Samuel Chacko and Sharanjit Kaur (Manjit Samuel & Partners) for the plaintiffs

Liew Teck Huat, Ravindra Samuel and Adeline Foo Siew Ling (Niru & Co) for the defendant.

Judgment reserved.

MPH Rubin J

Background facts

1 In this suit, the contest is between the immediate members of a traditional Gujerati family, the executors of the estate of the late Mr K P Doshi (ie his wife and his third son) on the one side and the deceased's daughter-in-law, the defendant who is married to his first son, on the other side. The dispute revolves around a sum of US$142,363.15 being the balance now retained in a call deposit account arising from a unit trust investment made in the joint names of the late K P Doshi and the defendant. The plaintiffs argue that the said sum should rightfully belong to the estate whereas the defendant claims that the sum was a gift to her from her father-in-law and belongs to her absolutely.

2 The late Mr K P Doshi, a wealthy businessman with substantial commercial interests in Malaysia died tragically following an acid attack on him on 1 July 1991. He is survived by his widow Mdm Damayanti and his three sons, Jigarlal, Tilaklal and Jogesh. The first son Jigarlal, who is the husband of the defendant, is reportedly facing criminal charges in Malaysia for causing grievous hurt to his father which resulted in the latter's death. The present suit is one amongst the many being contested by Jigarlal and the defendant on one side and the rest of the members of the family on the opposite side. I must observe at the outset that Jigarlal's alleged involvement in the death of his late father has little relevance to the issues at hand.

3 Briefly stated, the defendant's contention was that following her marriage to Jigarlal in 1977, her father-in-law doted on her and treated her as if she were his own daughter. Sometime in 1985, at the behest of her father-in-law, she started assisting him in the family business, initially part-time and subsequently, since 1988, on a full-time basis. She did not demand nor did she receive any regular remuneration from the deceased for whatever efforts and endeavours she exerted for the business. In any case, as averred by her in one of her affidavits (para 16 (e) of Exh P-6), she was at all times adequately supported by her husband's income derived from the family business.

4 She claimed that sometime in 1989, the deceased communicated to her his intention of opening a joint investment account with some fund managers and as a result invested a sum of US$300,000 into a unit trust fund in the joint names of himself and Shobhana. She outlined the intention behind the investment in para 13 of her affidavit of evidence-in-chief in the following terms:

The intention of the deceased was to open the account in both my name and the name of the deceased so that the money could be invested for other purposes. The intention was that this account and investments would be for the benefit of both the deceased and myself such that both of us could use the moneys.

5 After the death of the patriarch, bitterness crept in amongst the once close-knit family. The falling-out has been substantial and the result is that the two camps are pitting their skills and resources against each other concerning the assets left behind by the deceased.

6 The present claim originally commenced as an action by the executors of the estate against Banque Internationale A Luxembourg BIL (ASIA) Ltd (“the Bank”) for the balance in the accounts operated by the deceased with the Bank. However, the Bank's position, rightly so, was that since the account under question was a joint one in the names of the deceased and the defendant, they would place the credit balance remaining in the account, ie the sum of US$142,363.15, in a call deposit account pending the outcome of the adjudication of the dispute between the estate and the defendant.

7 The result was an interpleader summons which was heard by Lai Kew Chai J on 16 May 1994. After hearing arguments, the learned judge ordered that the issues be resolved by viva voce evidence in court; the executors of the estate be the plaintiffs and Shobhana be the defendant in the action; and the issues between the Bank and either of the other two parties be reserved to the trial judge.

Pleadings

8 Consequent upon the order by Lai Kew Chai J, the executors re-filed their statement of claim against the defendant. The essential features of their statement of claim appear at paras 3 to 9 therein and read as follows:

1. 3 The defendant is the daughter-in-law of the deceased and at all material times was a nominee and trustee of the deceased in respect of accounts maintained by the deceased during his lifetime in the joint names of the deceased and the defendant.

2. 4 The deceased had over the months of June and July 1989, personally transferred a sum of US$300,000 to a corporate fund manager known as Matheson PFC (M) Sdn Bhd (hereinafter referred to as 'Matheson') for the purposes of acquiring 60 units in the McIntosh Guaranteed Fund.

3. 5 The aforesaid unit trusts were acquired by Matheson for and on behalf of the deceased.

4. 6 By way of his letter dated the 27 July 1989, the deceased wrote to Matheson and requested the aforesaid unit trusts to be transferred into a nominee account and to be pledged as security for overdraft facilities to be obtained from Banque Internationale A Luxembourg BIL (ASIA) Ltd (hereinafter referred to as the 'said Bank').

5. 7 Pursuant to the express instructions of the deceased, the aforesaid unit trusts were sometime round about July or August 1989, transferred into a nominee account, with Akimbo Nominees Ltd, Hongkong. The aforesaid nominee account was designated as A/C 192 (hereinafter referred to as the said 'unit trust account').

6. 8 The beneficiaries of the aforesaid unit trust account were the deceased and the defendant, the defendant being no more than a nominee of the deceased and holding the interests accruing to her under the aforesaid unit trust account on trust for the deceased.

7. 9 Further or alternatively, the plaintiffs will aver that the defendant, having made no contribution towards the acquisition of the aforesaid unit trusts, held the same as a constructive trustee for the deceased and upon his death, for the estate of the deceased.

9 The defendant in her defence denied that she was a mere nominee of the deceased in respect of the disputed sums. Her averments in this connection essentially appear from paras 2 to 4 of her amended defence and they read as follows:

1. 2 Save that the defendant is the daughter-in-law of the deceased, para 3 of the statement of claim is denied. In particular, it is denied that the defendant was a nominee and/or a trustee in respect of accounts maintained in the joint names of the deceased and the defendants.

…

1. 4 The defendant avers that all the unit trusts referred to in the statement of...