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

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: Tan Lee Meng J
• Judgment Date: 28 August 2004
• Neutral Citation: [2004] SGHC 189
• Docket Number: Originating Summons No 810 of 2003
• Date: 28 August 2004
• Year: 2004
• Published date: 02 September 2004
• Plaintiff Counsel: Suppiah T Paul (Paul Lim and Associates)
• Citation: [2004] SGHC 189
• Defendant Counsel: Gurdaib Singh (Gurdaib Chong and Partners)
• Court: High Court (Singapore)
• Subject Matter: Land,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...