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
Citation[2004] SGHC 189
Date28 August 2004
Published date02 September 2004
Plaintiff CounselSuppiah T Paul (Paul Lim and Associates)
Docket NumberOriginating Summons No 810 of 2003
Defendant CounselGurdaib Singh (Gurdaib Chong and Partners)
CourtHigh Court (Singapore)
Year2004

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...

Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI

Get Started for Free

Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial

Transform your legal research with vLex

  • Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform

  • Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues

  • Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options

  • Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions

  • Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms

  • Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations

vLex

Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial

Transform your legal research with vLex

  • Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform

  • Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues

  • Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options

  • Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions

  • Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms

  • Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations

vLex

Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial

Transform your legal research with vLex

  • Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform

  • Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues

  • Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options

  • Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions

  • Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms

  • Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations

vLex

Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial

Transform your legal research with vLex

  • Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform

  • Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues

  • Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options

  • Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions

  • Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms

  • Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations

vLex

Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial

Transform your legal research with vLex

  • Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform

  • Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues

  • Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options

  • Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions

  • Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms

  • Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations

vLex

Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial

Transform your legal research with vLex

  • Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform

  • Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues

  • Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options

  • Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions

  • Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms

  • Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations

vLex
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]......
  • Get Started for Free
1 books & journal articles
  • HOUSING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD FLATS, TRUST AND OTHER EQUITABLE DOCTRINES
    • Singapore
    • Singapore Academy of Law Journal No. 2012, December - January 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......