Gurnam Kaur d/o Sardara Singh v Harbhajan Singh s/o Jagraj Singh (alias Harbhajan Singh s/o Jogaraj Singh)

JurisdictionSingapore
JudgeTan Lee Meng J
Judgment Date28 August 2004
Neutral Citation[2004] SGHC 189
Docket NumberOriginating Summons No 810 of 2003
Date28 August 2004
Year2004
Published date02 September 2004
Plaintiff CounselSuppiah T Paul (Paul Lim and Associates)
Citation[2004] SGHC 189
Defendant CounselGurdaib Singh (Gurdaib Chong and Partners)
CourtHigh Court (Singapore)
Subject MatterLand,Plaintiff seeking to sever joint tenancy with defendant and sell property,Joint tenancy,No contribution by defendant to purchase price of property,Interest in land,Proportion in which net proceeds of sale should be divided

28 August 2004

Tan Lee Meng J:

1 The plaintiff, Mdm Gurnam Kaur d/o Sardara Singh (“GK”), a widow aged 65 years, and her son, the defendant, Mr Harbhajan Singh s/o Jagraj Singh (“HS”), are joint tenants of Block 57 Geylang Bahru, #07-3517, Singapore 330057 (the “Geylang Bahru property”). In these proceedings, GK sought an order that the joint tenancy be severed, that the property be sold and that the net proceeds of sale be divided between her and HS.

Background

2 February 1974, GK and her late husband purchased the Geylang Bahru property. They held the property as joint tenants. By 1980, the housing loan for the property was fully paid up. In 1989, GK’s husband passed away and she became the sole owner of the property.

3 Four of GK’s five children got married and bought their own properties. Only HS continued to reside at the Geylang Bahru property with GK. In July 1998, GK allowed HS to become a joint tenant of the said property without requiring him to pay any money. She explained that she invited HS to become a joint owner of the said property to make it easier for him to marry his girlfriend, who was a foreigner, and to encourage him to become a more responsible person.

4 After HS got married, his relationship with his mother deteriorated to such an extent that she left her home. According to GK, HS then changed the locks of the Geylang Bahru property and prevented her from entering the property. In due course, GK instituted the present proceedings to protect her rights.

5 After hearing arguments by counsel for both parties, I ordered that the joint tenancy be severed and that the Geylang Bahru property be sold in the open market, with GK having conduct of the sale. If HS refuses to co-operate by signing the requisite documents to facilitate the sale within two weeks after being asked to do so, the Registrar of the Supreme Court shall sign the said documents on his behalf.

Division of the net proceeds of sale

6 The division of the net proceeds of sale will next be considered. It is trite law that where two or more joint tenants have contributed towards the purchase price of a property, there is a presumption in equity that each party’s interest in the property is in proportion to his or her financial contribution. Thus in Sitiawah Bee bte Kader v Rosiyah bte Abdullah [2000] 1 SLR 612, where a mother and her daughter were joint tenants of a Housing and Development Board, S Rajendran J held that there was an equitable tenancy in...

To continue reading

Request your trial
6 cases
  • Tan Chui Lian v Neo Liew Eng
    • Singapore
    • High Court (Singapore)
    • 15 November 2006
    ...in the flat at the time of the purchase: see Sitiawah at [9]. 24 In Gurnam Kaur d/o Sardara Singh v Harbhajan Singh s/o Jagraj Singh [2004] 4 SLR 420 (“Gurnam Kaur”), Tan Lee Meng J dealing with a private property held by the parties initially as joint tenants, did sever the tenancy. In dea......
  • Chan Yat Chun v Sng Jin Chye and another
    • Singapore
    • High Court (Singapore)
    • 16 March 2016
    ...the land be sold (see eg, Gurnam Kaur d/o Sardara Singh v Harbhajan Singh s/o Jagraj Singh (alias Harbhajan Singh s/o Jogaraj Singh) [2004] 4 SLR(R) 420). If jointly-owned realty cannot be seized a significant proportion of realisable wealth would be locked away out of the reach of creditor......
  • Chan Shwe Ching v Leong Lai Yee
    • Singapore
    • High Court (Singapore)
    • 12 August 2015
    ...Ah Sew [2010] SGHC 328 and Gurnam Kaur d/o Sardara Singh v Harbhajan Singh s/o Jagraj Singh (alias Harbhajan Singh s/o Jogaraj Singh) [2004] 4 SLR(R) 420). This can also happen even after a sale has been ordered, and the court has to declare each joint tenant’s beneficial interest in the pr......
  • ULZ v UMA
    • Singapore
    • Family Court (Singapore)
    • 6 June 2018
    ...59 Plaintiff’s Reply Affidavit 32 Para 73 Plaintiff’s Reply Affidavit 33 Para 76 Plaintiff’s Reply Affidavit 34 [2006] SGHC 203 35 [2004] 4 SLR(R) 420 36 Pg 28-35 Plaintiff’s AOM 37 Para 76 Plaintiff’s Reply Affidavit 38 Pg 858-862 Plaintiff’s Voluntary Affidavit 39 [2007] SGCA 35 40 [2007]......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
1 books & journal articles
  • HOUSING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD FLATS, TRUST AND OTHER EQUITABLE DOCTRINES
    • Singapore
    • Singapore Academy of Law Journal No. 2012, December 2012
    • 1 December 2012
    ...issue is beyond the scope of this article. 29 See Supreme Court of Judicature Act (Cap 322, 2007 Rev Ed) s 18(2), First Sch para 2. 30[2004] 4 SLR(R) 420. 31[1999] 3 SLR(R) 606. 32[2000] SGHC 31. 33Sitiawah Bee bte Kader v Rosiyah bte Abdullah[1999] 3 SLR(R) 606 at [13]. 34[2000] SGHC 31. 3......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT