MTT. A.R.S.A.R. Meyammai Achi v V Valliammai also known as Arunachalam Valliappan Valliyammai Achi and Another

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: Kan Ting Chiu J
• Judgment Date: 23 March 1995
• Neutral Citation: [1995] SGHC 81
• Court: High Court (Singapore)
• Year: 1995
• Published date: 23 January 2013
• Plaintiff Counsel: Gopal Krishnan Nair and G Raman (G Raman & Partners)
• Defendant Counsel: V Ramakrishnan (V Ramakrishnan & Co)
• Citation: [1995] SGHC 81

Judgment:

Coram : Kan Ting Chiu J

JUDGMENT

This application calls for a consideration of the equitable doctrine of conversion and the private international law of succession, and how they interact.

The plaintiff claims by her originating summons, inter alia, a declaration that she is entitled to one-third of the estate of A.R.S.A.R. Valliappan (hereinafter called "the deceased") under the provisions of the Hindu Succession Act of India and for an account to be taken of the assets of the estate.

The plaintiff is the mother of the deceased. The deceased died intestate on 3 July 1986 in India and was domiciled there. Letters of administration for his estate were granted in Singapore. The defendants, the administrators of the estate disputed the plaintiff's claim. The plaintiff bases her claim on the Hindu Succession Act as part of the law of domicile of the deceased. She claims that under the Act, she as the mother of the deceased was entitled to one-third of his estate. The defendants contend that the Hindu Succession Act does not apply to the deceased's properties outside of India, which they say are governed by our Intestate Succession Act, section 5 of which provides that disposal of movable property shall be governed by the deceased's lex domicilii and the immovable property shall be governed by the lex situs.

The originating summons has yet to be heard. In the meantime, the plaintiff applied for an interim injunction to restrain the defendants from dealing with the estate of the deceased. That application was not argued, but by consent, orders were made on 12 March 1993 that one-third of the movable assets of the deceased's estate at the time of his death was to be held by the defendants' solicitors as stakeholders pending the outcome of the plaintiff's claim and for the defendants to render an account of the movable property to the plaintiff.

After the account was rendered it transpired that the deceased had issued an option for the purchase of his property known as No.1 Lorong 27 Geylang, Singapore on 29 December 1982. The option was exercised on 31 January 1983, but the completion was delayed till 26 November 1988.

The deceased had also entered into an agreement to sell his property at No.503 Balestier Road on 3 May 1983. Completion of this sale took place on 11 April 1989. The timing of the two sales are significant in that they were contracted during the deceased's life-time and completed after his death.

On learning of these transactions, the plaintiff filed her present application for a declaration that these two properties were for the purposes of succession to the deceased's estate movable assets and were subject to the order of court of 12 March 1993 and for an order that the defendants pay the plaintiff one-third of all movable assets that have been ascertained without prejudice to the...