Shaan Taseer and others v Aamna Taseer

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: Chan Sek Keong CJ
• Judgment Date: 17 September 2012
• Neutral Citation: [2012] SGCA 52
• Court: Court of Appeal (Singapore)
• Hearing Date: 23 July 2012
• Docket Number: Civil Appeal No 22 of 2012
• Plaintiff Counsel: Tan Chee Meng SC, Sim Bock Eng and Joel Chng (WongPartnership LLP)
• Defendant Counsel: Tan Chuan Thye, Daniel Chia and Emily Choo (Stamford Law Corporation)
• Subject Matter: Land,Caveats,Wrongful lodgment
• Published date: 28 September 2012

Chan Sek Keong CJ (delivering the grounds of decision of the court):

This is an appeal by the Appellants against the decision of the judge (“the Judge”) in Aamna Taseer v Shaan Taseer and others [2012] SGHC 32 (“the Judgment”), ordering the removal of a caveat lodged by the Appellants against a registered land with a house erected thereon, known as 82 Cove Drive, Sentosa (“the House”).

The question of law in this appeal was whether the beneficiaries of an estate had the legal right to lodge a caveat against registered land on behalf of the estate of a deceased (“the Deceased”) on the basis that the property in dispute was held on a resulting trust for the Deceased. At the conclusion of the hearing, we answered the question in the negative and dismissed the appeal with costs. We now give our reasons.

Background

The Deceased was a Pakistani businessman and politician who died intestate in Pakistan. The Appellants are the adult children of the Deceased’s first marriage and the Respondent is his second wife of 27 years’ standing. All the parties are Muslims.

The dispute concerned the House, which was registered in the names of the Deceased and the Respondent as joint tenants. The House was purchased in January 2008, although negotiations began in late 2007. The Deceased obtained a loan from Standard Chartered Bank (“the Bank”) for approximately 55% of the purchase price which was secured by a mortgage on the House and also a guarantee signed by the joint owners on 6 September 2007.¹ The Deceased registered the House in his and the Respondent’s joint names on 3 January 2008. The Bank registered a mortgagee’s caveat against the House on 30 January 2008. Additional banking facilities were obtained on 5 August 2008 to construct the House. The Respondent did not contribute to the purchase price as she had no independent source of income.

At the time of the death of the Deceased on 4 January 2011, the joint owners were already two months in default on their instalment repayments.² Subsequently, the arrears were paid off by a company called Pace Pakistan, one of the Deceased’s companies under the Respondent’s control. The Respondent filed a notice of death with the Singapore Land Registry which was registered on 18 March 2011, and procured a change in the Land Register under s 114 of the Land Titles Act (Cap 157, 2004 Rev Ed) (“LTA”) resulting in her being registered as the sole owner of the House by the principle of survivorship under the joint tenancy.

The Deceased’s estate (“the Estate”) is subject to and distributable according to the law of Pakistan; it is not disputed that the Appellants and the Respondent are the beneficiaries of the Estate under Pakistani law. However, letters of representation to the Estate have not been taken out, but the third Appellant claimed that she had trusted the Respondent³ as “de facto head of the household” to deal with the Estate “in a fair and open manner”.⁴ When the Appellants received a list of the assets of the Estate which did not include the House, they queried the Respondent and, receiving no reply from her for over two months, took action to protect their alleged interests in the House.

The Appellants, as beneficiaries of the Estate, lodged a caveat (“the Caveat”) against the House on 8 August 2011. The ground of claim as set out in the Caveat was as follows:

By virtue of [the] beneficiaries’ interest in the [House] above described on the basis that the registered proprietor [ie, the Respondent] held the [House] in trust for [the Deceased].

It may be noted that the Appellants did not lodge the Caveat on behalf of the Estate but had done so on their own behalf as having an interest in the House which was then registered in the name of the Respondent as the sole owner. Notice of the entry of the Caveat was given to the Respondent on 12 August 2011.

The Appellants also filed suit in Pakistan on 29 September 2011 against the Respondent for, inter alia, an account of the Estate’s properties and assets and the appointment of an administrator. An interlocutory injunction was obtained against the Respondent restraining her from dissipating the Estate’s properties and assets. This action is outstanding.

The proceedings below

On 3 October 2011, the Respondent filed Originating Summons No 866 of 2011 to remove the Caveat on the ground that the Appellants had no standing merely as beneficiaries of the Estate to lodge the Caveat against the House (which, in any case, did not belong to the Estate as it devolved to the Respondent as the sole owner by the principle of survivorship). The Judge, after hearing the parties, allowed the Respondent’s application, and made an order that the Caveat be removed. The Judge, agreeing with the decisions in Guardian, Trust, and Executors Company of New Zealand, Limited v Hall [1938] NZLR 1020, In re Savage’s Caveat [1956] NZLR 118 and Gangemi v Gangemi [2009] WASC 195, held that only persons with a direct interest in a property had a caveatable interest in the property, and that a share in the assets of an unadministered estate was not a claim in respect of specific property of the...