Zulaikha Bee v Quek Chek Khiang: Beneficial Ownership of Land Dispute

In a High Court case before Tan Siong Thye JC, Zulaikha Bee Binte Mohideen Abdul Kadir sued Quek Chek Khiang, the estate of Fatimah Binte Sultan Ibrahim, and Ummuhani Umma Binte Mydin Abdul Kader, seeking to establish beneficial ownership over properties at 261 and 261A Joo Chiat Place. The defendants counterclaimed for beneficial interest in 261A Joo Chiat Place. The court declared Zulaikha Bee the beneficial owner of 261 and 261A Joo Chiat Place, dismissing the defendants' counterclaim.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

High Court

1.2 Outcome

Judgment for Plaintiff

1.3 Case Type

Civil

1.4 Judgment Type

Grounds of Decision

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

High Court case concerning a family dispute over beneficial ownership of land. The court declared the plaintiff the beneficial owner of two properties.

1.7 Decision Date

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party NameRoleTypeOutcomeOutcome TypeCounsels
Zulaikha Bee Binte Mohideen Abdul KadirPlaintiffIndividualBeneficial owner of 261 JCP and 261A JCPWon
Quek Chek KhiangDefendantIndividualJudgment in default of appearanceLost
Estate of Fatimah Binte Sultan IbrahimDefendantTrustClaim DismissedLost
Ummuhani Umma Binte Mydin Abdul KaderDefendantIndividualCounterclaim DismissedLost

3. Judges

Judge NameTitleDelivered Judgment
Tan Siong ThyeJudicial CommissionerYes

4. Counsels

Counsel NameOrganization
Adrian TanStamford Law Corporation
Lim Siok KhoonStamford Law Corporation
Rajan NairMessrs Rajan Nair & Partners

4. Facts

  1. The Land was purchased by Mr Mohamed Hidayatullah Sahib in 1956.
  2. Sahib conveyed the Land to Fatimah in 1960.
  3. Fatimah executed a trust deed vis-à-vis 263 JCP in 1967.
  4. Fatimah executed the 1971 Trust Deed declaring she held the Land on trust for the plaintiff.
  5. The 1971 Trust Deed was not registered.
  6. The Land was brought under the Torrens system in 2002.
  7. The plaintiff commenced proceedings in the High Court against the defendants.

5. Formal Citations

  1. Zulaikha Bee Binte Mohideen Abdul Kadir v Quek Chek Khiang and others, Suit No 636 of 2011, [2014] SGHC 168

6. Timeline

DateEvent
Land purchased by Mr Mohamed Hidayatullah Sahib
Sahib conveyed the Land to Fatimah
Fatimah mortgaged the Land to Sahib
Fatimah executed a trust deed vis-à-vis 263 JCP
Fatimah executed the 1971 Trust Deed
Fatimah mortgaged the Land to Mr Wee Keng Kiat
The 1971 Mortgage was registered with the Registry of Deeds
Fatimah leased 261A JCP to Mr K A Abdul Razak
Sahib passed away
Fatimah passed away
Notice to quit issued to Razak
Control of Rent Act was repealed
Tenancy agreement entered into with the first defendant
The Land was brought under the Torrens system
Proceedings commenced against the first defendant to recover arrears of rent and possession of 261A JCP
Razak passed away
The second defendant was made a party to proceedings
Settlement agreement entered into between the first defendant and the second defendant
Tenancy agreement entered into between the first defendant and the second defendant
The first defendant gave vacant possession of 261A JCP to the second defendant
Proceedings commenced in the District Court against the first defendant and the second defendant to recover possession of 261A JCP and arrears of rent
Claim was dismissed on the grounds that the District Court did not have jurisdiction
Plaintiff commenced the present suit in the High Court against the defendants
Plaintiff obtained judgement in default of appearance against the first defendant
Judgment reserved

7. Legal Issues

  1. Validity of Trust Deed
    • Outcome: The court found the 1971 Trust Deed to be valid, creating an express trust over 261 JCP and 261A JCP.
    • Category: Substantive
    • Related Cases:
      • [1994] 3 SLR(R) 188
      • [1895] 3 SSLR 23
      • [1928] SSLR 241
  2. Effect of Non-Registration of Trust Deed
    • Outcome: The court held that non-registration of the 1971 Trust Deed did not make it inadmissible as evidence and did not affect its validity.
    • Category: Substantive
    • Related Cases:
      • [1994] 3 SLR(R) 188
  3. Limitation Act
    • Outcome: The court held that the action was not time-barred under the Limitation Act.
    • Category: Procedural
  4. Doctrine of Laches
    • Outcome: The court held that the doctrine of laches did not apply in this case.
    • Category: Substantive
    • Related Cases:
      • [2007] 2 SLR(R) 417
  5. Oral Declaration of Trust
    • Outcome: The court held that an oral declaration of trust over land is unenforceable.
    • Category: Substantive

8. Remedies Sought

  1. Declaration of Beneficial Ownership
  2. Specific Performance
  3. Rental Proceeds
  4. Mesne Profits

9. Cause of Actions

  • Breach of Trust
  • Declaration of Beneficial Ownership

10. Practice Areas

  • Trusts
  • Real Estate Litigation

11. Industries

  • Real Estate

12. Cited Cases

Case NameCourtAffirmedCitationJurisdictionSignificance
Chong Poh Siew v Chong Poh HengHigh CourtYes[1994] 3 SLR(R) 188SingaporeCited for the principle that courts will rectify the register to do justice, especially when the issue relates to the obligation of a trustee vis-à-vis the beneficiary.
A P Ismail Saiboo v Quah Beng Kay and N R M N Raman ChittyunknownNo[1895] 3 SSLR 23Straits SettlementCited for the principle that an unregistered declaration of trust will not hold good against a legal estate acquired by a subsequent equitable mortgagee.
Lim Seng Keang v Lim Ah ChanunknownNo[1928] SSLR 241Straits SettlementCited for the principle that a registered conveyance has priority over an unregistered one.
Chean Siong Guat v Public ProsecutorunknownYes[1969] 2 MLJ 63MalaysiaCited for the principle that discrepancies in testimony may be minor or serious and that human fallibility in observation, retention, and recollection are often recognized by the court.
Osman bin Din v Public ProsecutorCourt of AppealYes[1995] 1 SLR(R) 419SingaporeCited for approving the principle in Chean Siong Guat v Public Prosecutor regarding discrepancies in testimony.
Public Prosecutor v Tan Kok Siong RobinDistrict CourtYes[2004] SGDC 224SingaporeCited for the principle that it is the duty of the court to sift the grain from the chaff.
Abdul Gani v State of Madhya PradeshSupreme CourtYes[1954] AIR (SC) 31IndiaCited for the principle that it is the duty of the court to sift the grain from the chaff.
Belfield International (Hong Kong) Ltd v Sheagar s/o T M VelooHigh CourtYes[2014] 1 SLR 24SingaporeCited for the definition of a sham document and the burden of proof required to establish that a document is a sham.
Snook v London and West Riding Investments LtdCourt of AppealYes[1967] 2 QB 786England and WalesCited for the principle that a document is a sham if all parties have a common intention that it was not to create the legal rights and obligations it appears to create.
Raffles Town Club Pte Ltd v Lim Eng Hock PeterHigh CourtYes[2010] SGHC 163SingaporeCited for the principle that a document is a sham if all parties have a common intention that it was not to create the legal rights and obligations it appears to create.
TKM (Singapore) Pte Ltd v Export Credit Insurance Corp of Singapore LtdunknownYes[1992] 2 SLR(R) 858SingaporeCited for the principle that a sham transaction is one which is good in form but false in fact.
Chng Bee Kheng v Chng Eng ChyeunknownYes[2013] 2 SLR 715SingaporeCited for the principle that the person alleging that a document is a sham has the burden of proving that the parties intended the document to be a pretence.
National Westminster Bank plc v JonesunknownYes[2001] 1 BCLC 98England and WalesCited for the principle that there is a strong presumption that the parties intended to be bound by the provisions of the agreements which they entered into.
Re Estate of Tan Kow Quee (alias Tan Kow Kwee)High CourtYes[2007] 2 SLR(R) 417SingaporeCited for a comprehensive analysis of the doctrine of laches.
Quek Hung Heong v Tan Bee Hoon (executrix for estate of Quek Cher Choi, deceased) and others and another suitHigh CourtNo[2014] SGHC 17SingaporeCited as an example of a case where most of the key witnesses have passed away.
Ong Siew Lay v Ong Boon ChuanHigh CourtYes[2009] SGHC 99SingaporeCited for the applicability of s 9 of the English Statute of Frauds 1677 (c 3) (UK) for trusts before 1994.
Ching Chew Weng Paul v Ching Pui Sim and othersunknownYes[2010] 2 SLR 76SingaporeCited for the applicability of s 9 of the English Statute of Frauds 1677 (c 3) (UK) for trusts before 1994.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
No applicable rules

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute NameJurisdiction
Registration of Deeds Act (Cap 269, 1989 Rev Ed)Singapore
Registration of Deeds Act (Cap 269, 1989 Rev Ed)Singapore
Civil Law Act (Cap 43, 1999 Rev Ed)Singapore
Evidence Act (Cap 97, 1997 Rev Ed)Singapore
Evidence Act (Cap 97, 1997 Rev Ed)Singapore
Limitation Act (Cap 163, 1996 Rev Ed)Singapore
Civil Law Act (Cap 43, 1999 Rev Ed)Singapore

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

  • Beneficial Ownership
  • Trust Deed
  • Express Trust
  • Doctrine of Laches
  • Limitation Act
  • Torrens System
  • Non-Registration
  • Sham Document

15.2 Keywords

  • Trust
  • Land
  • Beneficial Ownership
  • Singapore
  • High Court

17. Areas of Law

Area NameRelevance Score
Trust Law95
Property Law75
Succession Law40
Evidence Law30
Family Law30
Civil Procedure20
Contract Law10

16. Subjects

  • Trusts
  • Property Law
  • Equity