Jigarlal Kantilal Doshi v Damayanti Kantilal Doshi (Executrix) and Another

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judgment Date: 28 September 2000
• Date: 28 September 2000
• Docket Number: Civil Appeal No 101 of 1997
• Court: Court of Appeal (Singapore)

Jigarlal Kantilal Doshi

Plaintiff

and

Damayanti Kantilal Doshi (executrix of the estate of Kantilal Prabhulal Doshi, deceased) and another

Defendant

[2000] SGCA 54

Yong Pung How CJ

,

L P Thean JA

and

Chao Hick Tin JA

Civil Appeal No 101 of 1997

Court of Appeal

Probate and Administration–Grant of probate–Revocation–Probate granted both in principal jurisdiction of Malaysia and in Singapore–Executors and trustees not discharging duties properly in Malaysia–Grant of probate in Malaysia revoked–Whether “sufficient cause” to revoke grant of probate in Singapore–Section 32 Probate and Administration Act (Cap 251, 2000 Rev Ed)

The deceased died domiciled in Malaysia. The wife and youngest son were the executors and trustees of the deceased's will and the respondents in this case (“the executors”). They were granted probate of the will by the High Court of Malaya. The bulk of the deceased's estate was in Malaysia and there were only two assets in Singapore, viz moneys in two bank accounts. The executors had successfully taken out actions in Singapore, claiming declarations that the moneys in the two bank accounts belonged to the estate.

The appellant and his wife took out an originating motion against the executors in the High Court of Malaya, seeking to revoke the grant. The High Court revoked the grant. The executors then obtained a stay of execution of the order of revocation. The executors also applied for a grant of probate in Singapore, which was granted. The appellant and his wife then sought an order in the High Court to revoke the grant of probate in Singapore but their application was dismissed. The appellant appealed, but his wife decided not to.

The main issue in this case was whether there was “sufficient cause” to revoke the executors' grant of probate in Singapore under s 32 of the Probate and Administration Act (Cap 251, 2000 Rev Ed) (“the Act”).

The appellant relied mainly on the decision of the Malaysian Court of Appeal and submitted that the Singapore court should give due recognition to the findings and determination of the Malaysian courts as Malaysia was the principal jurisdiction for the administration of the estate. The executors argued that the allegations against them pertained to the respondents' administration of the assets of the estate in Malaysia and not their administration in Singapore, where there was no evidence that they had not been discharging their duties properly, and where administration of the estate was almost completed.

Held, dismissing the appeal:

(1) The findings of the Malaysian courts were accepted, viz, that the executors had not discharged their duties properly as executors with reference to the assets of the estate in Malaysia and that there was sufficient cause for the revocation of the executors' grant of probate in Malaysia. It was accepted that generally, the court in an ancillary jurisdiction would give recognition to the findings and determination of the court in the principal jurisdiction: at [15], [16] and [17].

(2) However, it was still necessary to consider whether in the circumstances of the case it would be in the interest of the beneficiaries to revoke the grant of probate made in favour of the executors in Singapore. In exercising its power under s 32 of the Act, the court had discretion: at [17].

(3) There was also no allegation that the executors had mismanaged the assets of the estate in Singapore or had acted improperly in the discharge of their duties in relation to these assets: at [22].

(4) It served no practical purpose to revoke the executors' grant of probate. The appellant did not show that there was a suitable party to take over the administration of the estate in Singapore. The Public Trustee had not given any indication of its intention or willingness to take over the administration of the estate in Singapore. It was also clearly not in the interest of the beneficiaries to revoke the grant leaving a vacuum, or to appoint the appellant or his wife. The grant of probate would not be revoked unless a suitable party was at hand to take over the respondents' role in administering the estate in Singapore: at [20], [21], [22] and [25].

Damayanti Kantilal Doshi v Jigarlal Kantilal Doshi [1998] 4 MLJ 268 (refd)

Damayanti Kantilal Doshi v Shobhana J Doshi [1997] 3 SLR (R) 340; [1998] 1 SLR 530 (refd)

Fazil Rahman v Nachiappa Chettiar [1963] MLJ 309 (refd)

Khoo Boo Gong, deceased, Re [1981] 2 MLJ 68 (refd)

Shaik Abdullah, deceased, Re [1941] MLJ 6 (folld)

Tan Khay Seng v Tan Kay Choon [1990] 1 MLJ 51 (refd)

Probate and Administration Act (Cap 251, 2000 Rev Ed) s 32 (consd)

Arthur Wang (Tan Kim Seng & Partners) for the appellant

Samuel Chacko (Colin Ng & Partners) for the respondents.

Judgment reserved.

L P Thean JA

(delivering the judgment of the court):

1 This appeal arose from the proceedings in OM 39/1996 taken out by the appellant, Jigarlal Kantilal Doshi, and his wife, Shobhana Jigarlal Doshi, against the respondents, Damayanti Kantilal Doshi and Jogesh Kantilal Doshi, as executors of the will of the late Kantilal Prabhulal Doshi. In these proceedings, the appellant and his wife sought an order to revoke the grant of probate of the will made in favour of the respondents by the District Court in Singapore. The application was dismissed by the High Court. Against that decision, the appellant appealed; his wife, however, decided not to appeal.

Background facts

2 The late Kantilal Prabhulal Doshi (“the deceased”) was a businessman and an industrialist and had lived in Malaysia for more than 50 years. He was tragically killed by an acid attack on 1 July 1991. Investigation into the cause of his death revealed that he...