Kamla Lal Hiranand v Harilela Padma Hari: Validity of 1988 Will & Secret Trusts

In Kamla Lal Hiranand v Harilela Padma Hari, the Court of Appeal of Singapore heard an appeal concerning the validity of a document (the '1988 Will') claimed to create a trust in the estate of the late Manghanmal Hiranand. The appellant, Kamla Lal Hiranand, sought to dismiss a petition for probate of a prior will (the '1986 Will') that favored the second respondent, Harilela Padma Hari. The court dismissed the appeal, finding the 1988 document invalid as a will and insufficient to establish a trust. The court upheld the validity of the 1986 Will.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

Court of Appeal

1.2 Outcome

Appeal dismissed.

1.3 Case Type

Civil

1.4 Judgment Type

Grounds of Decision

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

Appeal regarding the validity of a 1988 document as a trust and the enforceability of secret trusts. The court dismissed the appeal, upholding the validity of the 1986 will.

1.7 Decision Date

7 August 2000

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party Name	Role	Type	Outcome	Outcome Type	Counsels
Kamla Lal Hiranand	Appellant	Individual	Appeal Dismissed	Lost	SH Almenoar, Elaine Seow
Harilela Padma Hari	Respondent	Individual	Appeal Dismissed	Won	Davinder Singh SC, Cavinder Bull
Others	Respondent	Other	Appeal Dismissed	Won	Davinder Singh SC, Cavinder Bull, Jeffrey Beh

3. Judges

Judge Name	Title	Delivered Judgment
Lai Kew Chai	Judge	Yes
L P Thean	Justice of Appeal	No

4. Counsels

Counsel Name	Organization
SH Almenoar	Tan Rajah & Cheah
Elaine Seow	Tan Rajah & Cheah
Davinder Singh SC	Drew & Napier
Cavinder Bull	Drew & Napier
Jeffrey Beh	Lee Bon Leong & Co

4. Facts

The deceased, Manghanmal Hiranand, passed away in Singapore on 30 August 1994, domiciled in Hong Kong.
Prior to his death, the deceased made a will on 24 April 1986, and a codicil on 16 October 1987, collectively referred to as the '1986 Will'.
The 1986 Will named the first and third respondents as executors and trustees, with the second respondent as the sole beneficiary.
The appellant claimed the deceased executed another document on 22 November 1988 (the '1988 document') in Los Angeles, purporting to be his last will.
The 1988 document was unwitnessed and named the first respondent and one Ram G Hiranand as executors and trustees.
The 1988 document stipulated a distribution of the trust's principal and undistributed income upon the second respondent reaching 45 years of age.
The appellant sought a declaration that the estate be subject to a trust in accordance with the 1988 document.

5. Formal Citations

Kamla Lal Hiranand v Harilela Padma Hari and Others, CA 4/2000, [2000] SGCA 40

6. Timeline

Date	Event
1986-04-24	Deceased made a will appointing the first and third respondents the executors and trustees of the will.
1987-10-16	Deceased made a codicil.
1988-11-22	Appellant claimed the deceased executed a document in Los Angeles declared to be his last will and testament.
1994-08-30	Deceased passed away at the Mount Elizabeth Hospital in Singapore.
1998-05-06	High Court in Hong Kong granted probate of the 1986 Will to the first respondent.
1998-10-27	Order made for the appellant to take out a writ joining all the three respondents as the defendants.
1999-04-27	Assistant registrar held that the 1988 document is not valid for the purposes of creating and/or evidencing a trust in the estate of the deceased.
1999-05-28	Deed executed between the appellant and the second respondent.
1999-08-18	Appellant's solicitor filed an affidavit producing a statutory declaration made by the second respondent.
1999-12-08	Judicial commissioner dismissed the appeal.
2000-08-08	Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal.

7. Legal Issues

Validity of a testamentary document as a trust
- Outcome: The court held that a document of a testamentary nature, which has not been validly executed as a will, is completely inoperative and cannot be perfected by being regarded as a declaration of trust.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
  - Creation of trust
  - Intention of testator
  - Knowledge of executors or trustees or beneficiaries of the testator's intention
- Related Cases:
  - [1873] LR 16 Eq 340
  - [1877] 1 LR Ir 389
  - [1889] 23 LR Ir 53
  - [1936] 2 DLR 460
Existence of secret or half-secret trusts
- Outcome: The court held that the vital element of acceptance, express or tacit, of the secret trust on the part of the respondents is absent.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
  - Communication of the trust to the beneficiary/trustees
  - Acceptance of the trust by the beneficiary/trustee
- Related Cases:
  - [1979] 2 All ER 172
  - [1951] 1 Ch 344
  - [1920] 2 Ch 523
  - [1972] Ch 698
  - [1929] AC 318
  - [1900] 1 Ch 237
  - [1902] 2 Ch 220
Conclusive proof of due execution and validity of will
- Outcome: The court held that the grant of probate by the High Court in Hong Kong is conclusive proof of the legal character of the first respondent as the executor and trustee of the 1986 Will.
- Category: Procedural
Determination of question of law under Order 14 rule 12(1)
- Outcome: The court held that the question of whether the 1988 document is valid for the purpose of creating and/or evidencing a trust in the estate of the deceased is one suitable for determination under Order 14 rule 12(1).
- Category: Procedural
- Related Cases:
  - [1997] 3 SLR 387
  - [1999] 4 SLR 529

8. Remedies Sought

Declaration that the estate of the deceased be subject to a trust in accordance with the 1988 document
Inquiry as to intermeddling of the estate of the deceased by the respondents
Order that the respondents provide an account of all such intermeddling

9. Cause of Actions

Declaration of Trust

10. Practice Areas

Trust Law
Probate Litigation
Civil Litigation

11. Industries

No industries specified

12. Cited Cases

Case Name	Court	Affirmed	Citation	Jurisdiction	Significance
Payna Chettier v Maimoon bte Ismail	High Court	Yes	[1997] 3 SLR 387	Singapore	Cited to support the principle that an application under Order 14 rule 12 can be made if the decision would determine any claim or issue therein.
Microsoft Corporation & Ors v SM Summit Holdings Ltd & Anor	Court of Appeal	Yes	[1999] 4 SLR 529	Singapore	Cited to support the principle that an issue is a disputed point of fact or law relied on by way of claim or defence.
Warriner v Rogers	Court of Chancery	Yes	[1873] LR 16 Eq 340	England and Wales	Cited for the principle that a document of a testamentary nature, which has not been validly executed as a will, is completely inoperative and cannot be perfected by being regarded as a declaration of trust.
Cross v Cross	Court of Appeal in Ireland	Yes	[1877] 1 LR Ir 389	Ireland	Cited for the principle that a failed testamentary disposition cannot be effectuated simply by imposing a declaration of trust.
Towers v Hogan	High Court of Justice in Ireland	Yes	[1889] 23 LR Ir 53	Ireland	Cited for the principle that a document relied on as a declaration of trust was a testamentary instrument, and not being executed as a will, is completely inoperative.
Re Pfrimmer	Court of Appeal of Manitoba	Yes	[1936] 2 DLR 460	Canada	Cited for the principle that an instrument, even though in the form of a deed, which is not to become operative until the maker's death is testamentary in its character, and its operation depends upon its execution complying with the Wills Act.
Re Snowden; Smith v Spowage & Ors	High Court of Justice	Yes	[1979] 2 All ER 172	England and Wales	Cited for the principle that equity will not permit a statute to be used as an engine of fraud in the context of secret trusts.
Re Young (No 2)	High Court of Justice	Yes	[1951] 1 Ch 344	England and Wales	Cited for the principle that equity will not permit a statute to be used as an engine of fraud in the context of secret trusts.
Re Gardner; Huey v Cunnington	High Court of Justice	Yes	[1920] 2 Ch 523	England and Wales	Cited for the principle that equity will not permit a statute to be used as an engine of fraud in the context of secret trusts.
Ottaway v Norman	High Court of Justice	Yes	[1972] Ch 698	England and Wales	Cited for the essentials of the existence of a secret or half-secret trust.
Blackwell v Blackwell	House of Lords	Yes	[1929] AC 318	United Kingdom	Cited for the essentials of the existence of a secret or half-secret trust.
Re Stead; Witham v Andrew	High Court of Justice	Yes	[1900] 1 Ch 237	England and Wales	Cited for the principle that equity will not permit a statute to be used as an engine of fraud in the context of secret trusts.
Re Maddock; Llewelyn v Washington	Court of Appeal	Yes	[1902] 2 Ch 220	England and Wales	Cited to illustrate that the essential element of acceptance of the trust must exist before the trust arises.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
O 14 r 12 Rules of Court
O 72 r 9 Rules of Court

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute Name	Jurisdiction
Evidence Act (Cap 97, 1997 Rev Ed)	Singapore

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

Testamentary script
Secret trust
Half-secret trust
Probate
Grant of probate
Affidavit of testamentary script
1986 Will
1988 document

15.2 Keywords

Trust
Will
Probate
Secret trust
Singapore
Estate
Testamentary

16. Subjects

Trusts
Probate
Civil Procedure

17. Areas of Law

Trusts
Probate and Administration
Civil Procedure