Ranjit Singh s/o Ramdarsh Singh (suing as co-executor of the estate of Ramdarsh Singh s/o Danukdhari Singh (alias Ram Darash Singh), deceased and as a beneficiary of the estate) v Harisankar Singh (sued as co-executor of the estate of Ramdarsh Singh s/o Danukdhari Singh (alias Ram Darash Singh), deceased and in his personal capacity)

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: Andrew Phang Boon Leong JCA
• Judgment Date: 29 June 2021
• Neutral Citation: [2021] SGCA 66
• Court: Court of Appeal (Singapore)
• Docket Number: Civil Appeal No 206 of 2020
• Year: 2021
• Published date: 03 July 2021
• Hearing Date: 29 June 2021
• Plaintiff Counsel: Ranvir Kumar Singh (UniLegal LLC)
• Defendant Counsel: Twang Kern Zern and Lam Jianhao Mark (Central Chambers Law Corporation)
• Subject Matter: Family Law,Advancement,Presumption
• Citation: [2021] SGCA 66

Andrew Phang Boon Leong JCA (delivering the judgment of the court ex tempore):

This is an appeal against the decision of the High Court judge (“the Judge”) in Ranjit Singh s/o Ramdarsh Singh v Harisankar Singh [2020] SGHC 243 (“the Judgment”). The Appellant (“Ranjit”) and the Respondent (“Hari”) are brothers and the co-executors of their father’s estate (“the Testator”). The only dispute in these proceedings is whether a half share of No 85 Syed Alwi Road (“the Half Share” and “the Property”, respectively) belongs to the Testator’s estate or belongs beneficially to Hari. Ranjit says it belongs to the Testator’s estate while Hari claims it is his.

From a legal perspective, this appeal focuses on the presumption of advancement. Both brothers accept that (a) the Half Share is in Hari’s name, (b) the presumption of resulting trust arose since their father paid the full purchase price of the Half Share, and (c) the presumption of advancement displaced the presumption of resulting trust by dint of the relationship between Hari and the person who paid for the Half Share (ie, a father-son relationship). Where they disagree is whether the presumption of advancement has been rebutted. The Judge held that the presumption of advancement remained unrebutted and ultimately affirmed Hari’s beneficial interest in the Half Share.

The Judge’s analysis proceeded on two fronts. First, he examined the nature and state of the relationship between Hari and his father at that time of the purchase of the Half Share before concluding that the presumption of advancement was strong. The Judge then found that the presumption of advancement was unrebutted because the circumstances did not suggest that the father had intended to retain the beneficial interest in the Half Share.

Having carefully considered the parties written as well as oral submissions, we see no reason to depart from the reasoning and findings of the Judge. He had undertaken a detailed analysis of the relevant evidence as well as testimony in arriving at his decision. We agree with his reasoning and decision, and will therefore focus only on what seem to be to us to be the strongest arguments in Ranjit’s favour.

The first argument centres on the submission that the presumption of advancement had been weakened by the fact that Hari had two other brothers (we note, parenthetically, that the Testator did not make any provision for his daughters in his will). As has been observed in this...