Shaan Taseer v Aamna Taseer

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judgment Date: 17 September 2012
• Date: 17 September 2012
• Docket Number: Civil Appeal No 22 of 2012
• Court: Court of Appeal (Singapore)

Shaan Taseer and others

Plaintiff

and

Aamna Taseer

Defendant

[2012] SGCA 52

Chan Sek Keong CJ, Andrew Phang Boon Leong JA and V K Rajah JA

Civil Appeal No 22 of 2012

Court of Appeal

Land—Caveats—Whether beneficiaries of estate had legal right to lodge caveat against registered land on behalf of estate of deceased on basis that property in dispute was held on resulting trust for deceased

The deceased (‘the Deceased’) and his wife, Mrs Aamna Taseer (‘the Respondent’), held the property known as 82 Cove Drive, Sentosa (‘the House’) as joint tenants. On 18 March 2012, after the Deceased died intestate in Pakistan, the Respondent became registered as sole proprietor as the surviving joint tenant. A dispute arose between the appellants (‘the Appellants’), as beneficiaries of the estate of the Deceased (‘the Estate’), and the Respondent, with the Appellants claiming that the Respondent had held her undivided half-share in the House by way of resulting trust for the Deceased. On 8 August 2012, the Appellants lodged a caveat against the House (‘the Caveat’) in their own names claiming a share in the House as beneficiaries of the Estate.

The Respondent applied to court to remove the caveat. The Judge held that the Appellants had no standing to lodge the Caveat in their capacity as beneficiaries of the Estate and ordered it to be removed. The Judge also held that he was unable to determine whether the Respondent's undivided half share in the Property was held on a resulting trust for the Deceased, as the issue had to be tested at a trial of the issue.

The Appellants appealed. After the Caveat was removed, and before this appeal was heard, the Respondent gave an option to purchase to a third party purchaser (‘the Purchaser’) who exercised the option and lodged a caveat to protect his interest in the Property (‘the Purchaser's Caveat’).

Held, dismissing the appeal:

(1) Beneficiaries of an estate had no claim to any specific asset of that estate. Hence, the Appellants had no claim to an interest in the House, and therefore had no right to lodge the Caveat against the House: at [20].

(2) The appeal was utterly hopeless and the Appellants' claim academic as the court would not be able to reinstate the Caveat and restore the Appellants' claim to the House given that the Purchaser had priority interest in the House by virtue of the Purchaser's Caveat: at [13].

(3) The Estate would have had an interest in the House which could be protected by caveat under s 4 of the Land Titles Act (Cap 157, 2004 Rev Ed) if, at the time of registration as joint tenants, the Deceased did not intend to give the Respondent an undivided half share in the House, and that the joint tenancy of the House was not intended to have any legal effect but was a sham created for some purpose extraneous to making provision for her as his wife: at [16] and [18].

(4) The only way by which the Estate could show that it had an interest in the House immediately preceding the death of the Deceased (before it became the absolute property of the Respondent on the principle of survivorship) was to adduce evidence of these factual issues to rebut the presumption of advancement which operated in favour of the Respondent as the wife of the Deceased. Such evidence had to be tested at the trial of these issues. The Appellants' evidence was not sufficient proof of a resulting trust: at [19].

(5) The Appellants could not lodge the Caveat on the Estate's behalf and for the Estate's benefit as beneficiaries of the Estate as the Respondent herself was also a beneficiary, and the Appellants had produced no authority that they were entitled to represent the Estate in any proceedings against the Respondent without taking out letters of representation to the Estate: at [21].

Gangemi v Gangemi [2009] WASC 195 (refd)

Guardian, Trust, and Executors Company of New Zealand Ltd v Hall [1938] NZLR 1020 (refd)

Savage's Caveat, Re [1956] NZLR 118 (refd)

Wong Moy v Soo Ah Choy [1996] 3 SLR (R) 27; [1996] 3 SLR 398 (distd)

Land Titles Act (Cap 157, 2004 Rev Ed) ss 4, 114, 115, 115 (3)

Conveyancing and Law of Property Act (Cap 61, 1994 Rev Ed)

Registration of Deeds Act (Cap 269, 1989 Rev Ed)

Residential Property Act (Cap 274, 2009 Rev Ed) ss 3 (3) , 3 (4)

Tan Chee Meng SC, Sim Bock Eng and Joel Chng (Wong Partnership LLP) for the appellants

Tan Chuan Thye, Daniel Chia and Emily Choo (Stamford Law Corporation) for the respondent.

Chan Sek Keong CJ

...