Lal Hiranand v Kamla Lal Hiranand: Duress, Undue Influence & Deed of Settlement Dispute

In Lal Hiranand v Kamla Lal Hiranand, the High Court of Singapore addressed a dispute over a deed of settlement between Lal Hiranand and his wife, Kamla Lal Hiranand, concerning the estate of Lal's father. Lal sought to invalidate the deed, citing duress and undue influence. The court, however, dismissed Lal's claim, finding the deed enforceable and not signed under duress or undue influence. The court allowed Kamla's counterclaim for specific performance of the deed, including the payment of US$2 million and 25% of the assets of the estate.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

High Court

1.2 Outcome

Plaintiff's claim dismissed; defendant's counterclaim for specific performance allowed.

1.3 Case Type

Civil

1.4 Judgment Type

Grounds of Decision

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

High Court case between Lal and Kamla Hiranand regarding the validity of a deed of settlement. The court found the deed enforceable.

1.7 Decision Date

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party NameRoleTypeOutcomeOutcome TypeCounsels
Lal HiranandPlaintiffIndividualClaim DismissedLost
Kamla Lal HiranandDefendantIndividualCounterclaim AllowedWon

3. Judges

Judge NameTitleDelivered Judgment
Tay Yong KwangJudgeYes

4. Counsels

Counsel NameOrganization
Kenneth TanSant Singh Partnership
Parveen KaurSant Singh Partnership
Murugaiyan SivakumarSant Singh Partnership
Michael HwangRamdas & Wong
Constance TayRamdas & Wong
Roslina BabaRamdas & Wong

4. Facts

  1. The plaintiff and defendant were married in 1969 and have three children.
  2. The dispute concerns the estate of the plaintiff’s late father, Manghanmal Hiranand Ramchandani (MHR), who passed away in 1994.
  3. The plaintiff sought to set aside a deed of settlement executed in 1999, citing duress and undue influence.
  4. The defendant claimed the 1988 will was the true will of MHR, made for the benefit of the entire family.
  5. The plaintiff remitted US$700,000 to the defendant’s mother pursuant to the 1999 deed.
  6. The plaintiff signed an affidavit in Geneva declaring his intention to settle the dispute out of court.
  7. The plaintiff was hospitalised for major depression in July 1999.

5. Formal Citations

  1. Lal Hiranand v Kamla Lal Hiranand, Suit 541/2004, [2006] SGHC 98
  2. Kamla Lal Hiranand v Lal Hiranand, , [2003] 3 SLR 198
  3. Kamla Lal Hiranand v Harilela Padma Hari, , [2000] 3 SLR 696
  4. Kamla Lal Hiranand v Harilela Padma Hari, , [2000] 2 SLR 479

6. Timeline

DateEvent
Lal Hiranand and Kamla Lal Hiranand married.
Manghanmal Hiranand Ramchandani (MHR) executed a will.
Lal Hiranand did a deed poll to remove the family surname (Ramchandani) from his name.
Manghanmal Hiranand Ramchandani (MHR) executed a codicil.
Manghanmal Hiranand Ramchandani (MHR) allegedly made a will in California.
Manghanmal Hiranand Ramchandani (MHR) passed away.
Inventory of items taken out from MHR’s safe deposit box with HSBC.
Lal Hiranand was introduced to Easwar Srikumar in Singapore.
Lal Hiranand returned to Hong Kong.
Kamla Lal Hiranand's birthday dinner.
Christopher Sly met with Kamla Lal Hiranand and her three children in London.
Lal Hiranand left Hong Kong.
Lal Hiranand's solicitors wrote to Kamla Lal Hiranand's solicitors to ask about the interest that Kamla Lal Hiranand was claiming in MHR’s estate.
A copy of the 1988 will was handed over to Lal Hiranand’s solicitors during a hearing in the District Court.
Lal Hiranand saw a doctor in Singapore and was prescribed medication.
An assistant registrar of the High Court of Singapore ruled that the 1988 will was not capable of being a will and dismissed the action.
Lal Hiranand arrived in Geneva from the Middle East.
Lal Hiranand signed a modified version of the draft on 7 May 1999 without the benefit of legal advice.
Ravine's graduation.
The family left for London.
Priya's graduation.
Lal Hiranand went to Gulu’s house.
Tan Rajah & Cheah wrote to the Registrar of the Supreme Court to withhold the extraction of the grant of probate.
Lal Hiranand executed the 1999 deed.
Lal Hiranand was admitted to the Adventist Hospital in Hong Kong.
Lal Hiranand was discharged from the Adventist Hospital in Hong Kong.
Lal Hiranand was re-admitted to hospital.
Lal Hiranand signed a “Form of Receipt and Discharge”.
Kamla Lal Hiranand, the three children and Easwar Srikumar arrived in Hong Kong.
Lal Hiranand and his family were in Madrid attending a wedding.
Lal Hiranand signed the 18 August 1999 statutory declaration.
The appeal in the Singapore probate action came before the court.
A consent order was recorded as between Lal Hiranand and Kamla Lal Hiranand.
Lal Hiranand made a will appointing Easwar Srikumar and Srikumar’s wife as executors and trustees.
Lal Hiranand returned to Hong Kong with Easwar Srikumar.
Lal Hiranand moved out of 8 Purves Road.
Shaon showed Lal Hiranand a document, which he said, was an inventory of items taken out from MHR’s safe deposit box with HSBC.
Kamla Lal Hiranand and Easwar Srikumar made Lal Hiranand sign a statement disputing again the validity of the 1986 will and acknowledging the authenticity of the 1988 will.
Lal Hiranand moved out of his home in Hong Kong.
Lal Hiranand commenced divorce proceedings against Kamla Lal Hiranand in Hong Kong.
Lal Hiranand revoked the power of attorney given by him to Easwar Srikumar.
Kamla Lal Hiranand sought to enforce the consent order against Lal Hiranand in the High Court in Singapore.
Decision Date

7. Legal Issues

  1. Duress
    • Outcome: The court found that the plaintiff did not sign the 1999 deed under duress.
    • Category: Substantive
  2. Undue Influence
    • Outcome: The court found that the plaintiff did not sign the 1999 deed under undue influence.
    • Category: Substantive
  3. Enforceability of Deed of Settlement
    • Outcome: The court found the 1999 deed enforceable as a contract.
    • Category: Substantive
  4. Certainty of Contractual Terms
    • Outcome: The court found that clauses 6 and 7 of the 1999 deed were not unenforceable because of uncertainty in their terms.
    • Category: Substantive
  5. Validity of Will
    • Outcome: The court held that the 1988 will was in all likelihood a forged document.
    • Category: Substantive

8. Remedies Sought

  1. Order to set aside the deed of settlement
  2. Declaration that the deed of settlement is invalid and/or unenforceable
  3. Return of US$700,000 paid to the defendant’s mother
  4. Specific performance of the deed of settlement

9. Cause of Actions

  • Breach of Contract
  • Duress
  • Undue Influence

10. Practice Areas

  • Commercial Litigation

11. Industries

  • No industries specified

12. Cited Cases

Case NameCourtAffirmedCitationJurisdictionSignificance
Royal Bank of Scotland plc v Etridge (No 2)N/AYes[2001] 3 WLR 1021N/ACited for the principles of unacceptable conduct constituting undue influence.
Kamla Lal Hiranand v Lal HiranandHigh CourtNo[2003] 3 SLR 198SingaporeCited to show that the consent order was not enforceable.
Kamla Lal Hiranand v Harilela Padma HariCourt of AppealNo[2000] 3 SLR 696SingaporeCited for the Court of Appeal's reference to 'compelling evidence' that the 1988 will was indeed a forgery.
Kamla Lal Hiranand v Harilela Padma HariHigh CourtNo[2000] 2 SLR 479SingaporeCited for the testimony of Norris Bishton, Jr. regarding the 1988 will.
Binder v AlachouzosEnglish Court of AppealYes[1972] 2 QB 151England and WalesCited for the principle that a compromise represents the end of the dispute from which it arose.
Allcard v SkinnerEnglish Court of AppealNo(1887) 36 Ch D 145England and WalesCited for the principle that the right to rescind may be lost by affirmation.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
No applicable rules

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute NameJurisdiction
No applicable statutes

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

  • Deed of settlement
  • Duress
  • Undue influence
  • 1988 will
  • 1986 will
  • Spiritual advisor
  • Family trust
  • Probate action

15.2 Keywords

  • contract
  • duress
  • undue influence
  • settlement
  • will
  • estate
  • family

17. Areas of Law

Area NameRelevance Score
Undue Influence80
Contract Law75
Duress70
Wills and Probate50
Succession Law50

16. Subjects

  • Contract Law
  • Family Law
  • Trusts
  • Wills and Estates