Mahidon Nichiar v Dawood Sultan: Family Dispute Over Property Inheritance

In 2014, the High Court of Singapore heard a case between Mahidon Nichiar Binte Mohd Ali, Jahir, Aysha, and Noorjahan (Plaintiffs) and Dawood Sultan Kamaldin (Defendant) regarding the ownership of a property. The Plaintiffs claimed Dawood breached an agreement concerning the administration of their deceased father's estate. The court, presided over by Lee Kim Shin JC, dismissed the Plaintiffs' claims, finding they failed to prove Dawood acted deceitfully. The court also allowed Dawood's counterclaim for damages related to the lodging of a caveat on the property.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

High Court

1.2 Outcome

Plaintiffs' claims dismissed; counterclaim for damages allowed in part.

1.3 Case Type

Civil

1.4 Judgment Type

Grounds of Decision

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

A family dispute over the administration of a Muslim estate and ownership of a property. The court dismissed the plaintiffs' claims.

1.7 Decision Date

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party NameRoleTypeOutcomeOutcome TypeCounsels
JahirPlaintiffIndividualClaim DismissedLost
AyshaPlaintiffIndividualClaim DismissedLost
NoorjahanPlaintiffIndividualClaim DismissedLost
Dawood Sultan KamaldinDefendantIndividualCounterclaim Allowed in PartPartial
Mahidon Nichiar Binte Mohd AliPlaintiffIndividualClaim DismissedLost

3. Judges

Judge NameTitleDelivered Judgment
Lee Kim ShinJudicial CommissionerYes

4. Counsels

Counsel NameOrganization
Bernard SahagarLee Bon Leong & Co
Zhulkarnain Abdul RahimRodyk & Davidson LLP
Jansen AwRodyk & Davidson LLP

4. Facts

  1. The Property was purchased by Father in 1979 and registered in his sole name.
  2. Father suffered a stroke and was bedridden until his death in 2000.
  3. Dawood and Mother became joint tenants of the Property in 2005.
  4. Plaintiffs claimed they only discovered the joint tenancy in 2011.
  5. Plaintiffs lodged a caveat on the Property in 2011.
  6. Plaintiffs claimed Dawood breached an agreement to transfer the Property solely to Mother.
  7. Dawood claimed the siblings agreed to the joint tenancy.

5. Formal Citations

  1. Mahidon Nichiar Binte Mohd Ali and others v Dawood Sultan Kamaldin, Suit No 251 of 2013, [2014] SGHC 207

6. Timeline

DateEvent
Property purchased by Father
Father passed away
Dawood wrote to the Syariah court seeking a Certificate of Inheritance
1st Inheritance Certificate issued
2nd Inheritance Certificate obtained
Deed of Renunciation of Beneficial Interest signed
Transmission Application No IUA 72518P dated
Transfer Document No IA 72519A dated
Property transferred to Mother and Dawood as joint tenants
Plaintiffs discovered the transfer
Caveat filed on the Property on behalf of the Plaintiff Siblings
Dawood notified of the filing of the Caveat
Plaintiffs issued a letter of demand to Dawood
Dawood’s solicitors responded denying the existence of the Plaintiffs’ 2004 Agreement
Plaintiffs commenced proceedings
Court dismissed the Plaintiffs’ claims
Decision Date

7. Legal Issues

  1. Breach of Contract
    • Outcome: The court found that the Plaintiffs failed to prove the existence of the alleged agreement, therefore no breach occurred.
    • Category: Substantive
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Failure to adhere to agreement terms
      • Misrepresentation of intentions
  2. Limitation Period
    • Outcome: The court held that the claim was time-barred, as the cause of action accrued more than six years before the commencement of proceedings, and there was no fraudulent concealment to postpone the limitation period.
    • Category: Procedural
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Applicability of six-year limitation
      • Postponement of limitation due to fraud
  3. Caveat Lodgement
    • Outcome: The court found that the Plaintiff Siblings lodged the Caveat without reasonable cause, as they did not have a caveatable interest in the property.
    • Category: Substantive
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Reasonable cause for lodgement
      • Existence of caveatable interest
  4. Non Est Factum
    • Outcome: The court found that the Plaintiffs could not successfully invoke the doctrine of non est factum, as they did not fundamentally misunderstand the nature and effect of the document, and any mistake was attributable to their negligence.
    • Category: Substantive
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Fundamental mistake
      • Carelessness in signing

8. Remedies Sought

  1. Declaration that Mother is the sole legal and beneficial owner of the Property
  2. Declaration that Dawood has no legal or beneficial interest in the Property
  3. Transfer Document No IA 72519A is null and void
  4. Damages for wrongful lodgement of caveat

9. Cause of Actions

  • Breach of Contract
  • Wrongful Lodgement of Caveat

10. Practice Areas

  • Civil Litigation
  • Family Dispute Resolution
  • Estate Administration

11. Industries

  • No industries specified

12. Cited Cases

Case NameCourtAffirmedCitationJurisdictionSignificance
Teh Siew Hua v Tan Kim ChiongHigh CourtYes[2010] 4 SLR 123SingaporeCited to explain the application of Section 9 of the Limitation Act regarding actions for the recovery of land.
Tay Tuan Kiat and another v Pritnam Singh BrarHigh CourtYes[1985-1986] SLR(R) 763SingaporeCited to explain the application of Section 9 of the Limitation Act regarding actions for the recovery of land.
Bank of America National Trust and Savings Association v Herman IskandarCourt of AppealYes[1998] 1 SLR(R) 848SingaporeCited with approval in Chua Teck Chew Robert v Goh Eng Wah for the principle that the defendant must have knowingly or recklessly committed a wrongdoing in secret to postpone the limitation period.
Chua Teck Chew Robert v Goh Eng WahCourt of AppealYes[2009] 4 SLR(R) 716SingaporeCited for the principle that the defendant must have knowingly or recklessly committed a wrongdoing in secret to postpone the limitation period.
Alwie Handoyo v Tjong Very Sumito and another and another appealCourt of AppealYes[2013] 4 SLR 308SingaporeCited for the rule of evidence that the evidence of a witness ought not to be rejected completely simply because the witness was unreliable or untrue in some parts.
Loo Chay Sit v Estate of Loo Chay Loo, deceasedCourt of AppealYes[2010] 1 SLR 286SingaporeCited for the principle that the insufficiency of evidence adduced to prove a fact can result from the opposing party undermining the assertion.
Ho Soo Fong and another v Standard Chartered BankCourt of AppealYes[2007] 2 SLR(R) 181SingaporeCited for the definition of 'without reasonable cause' in the context of lodging a caveat under the Land Titles Act.
Aamna Taseer v Shaan Taseer and othersHigh CourtYes[2012] 2 SLR 348SingaporeCited for the principle that only persons with an interest in land may lodge a caveat over that land.
Saunders v Anglia Building SocietyHouse of LordsYes[1971] AC 1004United KingdomCited as the leading case on non est factum, emphasizing the responsibility of a person signing a document to take care what he signs.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
No applicable rules

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute NameJurisdiction
Limitation Act (Cap 163, 1996 Rev Ed)Singapore
Land Titles Act (Cap 157, 2004 Rev Ed)Singapore
Evidence Act (Cap 97, 1997 Rev Ed)Singapore

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

  • Muslim estate
  • Joint tenancy
  • Deed of Renunciation of Beneficial Interest
  • Caveat
  • Limitation Act
  • Non est factum
  • Plaintiffs’ 2004 Agreement
  • Dawood’s 2004 Agreement
  • Inheritance Certificate
  • Land Titles Act

15.2 Keywords

  • family dispute
  • property
  • inheritance
  • Muslim estate
  • caveat
  • limitation
  • Singapore

17. Areas of Law

Area NameRelevance Score
Muslim Law90
Wills and Probate80
Estate Law80
Family Law70
Property Law60
Contract Law40
Civil Procedure30
Trust Law30
Estoppel20
Procedural Law20
Affidavits10

16. Subjects

  • Trusts
  • Equity
  • Succession
  • Property Law
  • Family Law