Sum Keong Realty Pte Ltd v Syed Jafaralsadeg Alhadad and Others

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judgment Date: 20 June 1996
• Date: 20 June 1996
• Docket Number: Originating Summons No 1082 of
• Court: High Court (Singapore)

Sum Keong Realty Pte Ltd

Plaintiff

and

Syed Jafaralsadeg Alhadad and others

Defendant

[1996] SGHC 124

Chao Hick Tin J

Originating Summons No 1082 of 1995

High Court

Land–Caveats–Wrongful lodgment–Trustees lodging caveat claiming leasehold interest in property belonging to trust–Registered proprietor of unexpired portion of leasehold property applying to remove caveat–Whether freehold reversion or leasehold interest held under trust–Whether caveat to be removed–Land–Registration of title–Effect of–Indefeasibility–Registered proprietor claiming indefeasible title to property because caution on qualified title lapsed–No entry made regarding caution lapsing–Whether caution had become defunct entry–Sections 25 (2) and 25 (4) Land Titles Act (Cap 157, 1994 Rev Ed)

Sum Keong Realty Pte Ltd (“the plaintiff”) was the registered proprietor of the unexpired portion of a 999-year leasehold property, which was the subject of this action. It purchased the property in 1994 and registered it on 9 November 1994. The defendants were the trustee of the trust created by the 1894 will of Syed Ahmad bin Abdulraman bin Ahmad Aljunied (“the testator”).

The defendants relied solely on an Order of the Supreme Court of the Colony of Singapore dated 28 October 1895 (“the 1895 Order”) in claiming that the leasehold interest in the property belonged to the trust and that it therefore vested in them because the testator had purchased the property in 1881. They lodged a caveat against the property on 8 December 1994 and registered the caveat on 13 December 1994. The plaintiff argued that: (a) what belonged to the trust was the freehold reversion of the property and not the leasehold term which it had purchased; and that (b) it acquired an indefeasible title to the property because the caution on the qualified title lapsed. Hence, the plaintiff applied to court to have the caveat removed.

Held, allowing the application:

(1) From the indenture, it was clear that what the testator had purchased was the freehold reversion. There was nothing to suggest that at the time of his death, the testator held anything other than the freehold reversion to the property: at [10] and [12].

(2) The 1895 Order was both an order appointing a new trustee as well as an order vesting in the new trustee the properties of the trust. It was not an order made by the court in the exercise of its probate jurisdiction. The essence of probate jurisdiction was to determine the genuineness or validity of a will and not on any other matter. At the time the testator made his will, he did not own the leasehold interest in the property, neither did he acquire title thereto at any time prior to his death. All that he possessed to pass over to his executor and trustee was the freehold reversion: at [13], [14], [15] and [17].

(3) Section 25 (2) of the Land Titles Act (Cap 157, 1994 Rev Ed) (“the Act”) made it clear that a caution stated on a qualified title lapsed on the expiry of five years from the date of the last conveyance which was cancelled by the Registrar upon the creation of the qualified folio. In this instance, that date was 2 October 1989. The fact that no entry had been made in respect of the lapsing of the caution was immaterial as per s 25 (4) of the Act. Hence, the caution had become a defunct entry and the making of an entry regarding its lapsing was purely administrative. The Registrar had no discretion in the matter. Therefore by virtue of s 46 of the Act, the plaintiff had acquired an indefeasible title before the trustees' caveat was lodged: at [22] and [25].

Evidence Act (Cap 97, 1990 Rev Ed) s 43 (2) (d)

Land Titles Act (Cap 157, 1994 Rev Ed) ss 25 (2), 25 (4) (consd);ss 25 (1), 25 (5), 26, 46 (1)

Registration of Deeds Act (Cap 269, 1989 Rev Ed) s 14

Trustees Act (Cap 337, 1985 Rev Ed) s 53

Gan Hian Chye (Allen & Gledhill) for the plaintiff

Peter Pang and Ronald Choo (Peter Pang & Co) for the defendants.

Judgment reserved.

Chao Hick Tin J

1 This is an application by the plaintiffs to remove a caveat lodged by the defendants against the property known as Lot 124-1 TS16 (“the property”), upon which houses 41 and 43 Dickson Road stood.

2 The plaintiffs are the registered proprietors of the property for the unexpired portion of a leasehold term of 999 years commencing from 1 August 1859 as shown on the Certificate of Title, Volume 369, Folio 16. A qualified title in respect of the leasehold interest of the property was first issued to Creative Realty Pte Ltd on 29 June 1991. Thereafter, there were two other transfers before the plaintiffs became the owners thereof by purchase in 1994. The transfer to the plaintiffs was registered on 9 November 1994.

3 The caveat of the defendants was lodged against the property on 8 December 1994 and registered on 13 December 1994. The defendants are the present trustees of the trusts of the will dated 4 May 1894 of Syed Ahmad bin Abdulrahman bin Ahmat Aljunied (“the testator”). The basis of the defendants' claim that the leasehold interest in the property belongs to the trust and thus vests in them is that it was bought over by the testator as...