Singh v Singh: Resulting Trust, Advancement, and Beneficial Ownership of Property

Ranjit Singh, as co-executor and beneficiary of the estate of Ramdarsh Singh, sued Harisankar Singh, also a co-executor and beneficiary, claiming that Harisankar held a half-share in a property on resulting trust for the estate. The High Court of Singapore, presided over by Judicial Commissioner Tan Puay Boon, dismissed the suit, finding that the presumption of advancement displaced the presumption of resulting trust, and that Harisankar Singh held the half-share beneficially. The judgment was reserved on 10 November 2020.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

High Court of the republic of singapore

1.2 Outcome

Plaintiff's suit dismissed.

1.3 Case Type

Civil

1.4 Judgment Type

Judgment

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

The High Court held that the defendant beneficially owned a half-share in a property, as the presumption of advancement displaced the presumption of resulting trust.

1.7 Decision Date

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party NameRoleTypeOutcomeOutcome TypeCounsels
Ranjit Singh s/o Ramdarsh SinghPlaintiffIndividualSuit DismissedLost
Harisankar SinghDefendantIndividualJudgment for DefendantWon

3. Judges

Judge NameTitleDelivered Judgment
Tan Puay BoonJudicial CommissionerYes

4. Counsels

Counsel NameOrganization
Ranvir Kumar SinghUniLegal LLC
Twang Kern ZernCentral Chambers Law Corporation
Lam Jianhao MarkCentral Chambers Law Corporation

4. Facts

  1. The Plaintiff and Defendant are brothers and two of the Testator’s six children.
  2. The Testator executed a will dated 27 February 1982 and passed away on 30 October 1989.
  3. The Defendant was appointed executor of the Estate by way of a Grant of Probate dated 1 June 1990.
  4. In 2017, the Plaintiff was appointed as co-executor of the Estate.
  5. The Property is a two-storey shophouse.
  6. On 2 May 1967, the Property had been conveyed to Jiwan Singh and the Testator as tenants in common in equal shares.
  7. On 10 July 1984, Mr Jiwan conveyed his half-share in the Property to the Defendant for a consideration of $50,000.00, which was fully funded by the Testator.
  8. On the same day, the Defendant executed a power of attorney, which appointed the Testator as his attorney in matters relating to the Property.

5. Formal Citations

  1. Ranjit Singh s/o Ramdarsh Singh v Harisankar Singh, Suit No 1005 of 2019, [2020] SGHC 243

6. Timeline

DateEvent
Property conveyed to Jiwan Singh and Ramdarsh Singh.
Testator executed a will.
Jiwan Singh conveyed his half-share in the property to the Defendant.
Defendant executed a power of attorney.
Testator passed away.
Defendant appointed executor of the Estate by way of a Grant of Probate.
Grant of Probate issued.
Plaintiff returned to Singapore from India and moved into the Property.
Plaintiff appointed as co-executor of the Estate by way of a Grant of Probate.
Grant of Probate issued.
Plaintiff commenced an action in HCF/S 5/2017 against the Defendant for various orders relating to the Estate.
Hearing of the case.
Hearing of the case.
Judgment reserved.

7. Legal Issues

  1. Presumption of Resulting Trust
    • Outcome: The court acknowledged that the presumption of resulting trust arose because the Testator fully paid the consideration for the transfer of the half-share to the Defendant.
    • Category: Substantive
    • Related Cases:
      • [2008] 2 SLR(R) 108
      • [2014] 3 SLR 1048
  2. Presumption of Advancement
    • Outcome: The court found that the presumption of advancement was not rebutted and displaced the presumption of resulting trust.
    • Category: Substantive
    • Related Cases:
      • [2008] 2 SLR(R) 108
      • [2007] 1 SLR(R) 795
  3. Beneficial Ownership of Property
    • Outcome: The court held that the Defendant held the half-share in the Property beneficially.
    • Category: Substantive

8. Remedies Sought

  1. Declaration that the Defendant held his half-share in the Property on resulting trust for the Estate

9. Cause of Actions

  • Resulting Trust

10. Practice Areas

  • Civil Litigation
  • Trust Litigation
  • Property Law

11. Industries

  • No industries specified

12. Cited Cases

Case NameCourtAffirmedCitationJurisdictionSignificance
Lau Siew Kim v Yeo Guan Chye Terence and anotherCourt of AppealYes[2008] 2 SLR(R) 108SingaporeCited for the two-stage approach in determining the application of the presumption of resulting trust and presumption of advancement.
Chan Yuen Lan v See Fong MunCourt of AppealYes[2014] 3 SLR 1048SingaporeCited for the framework to analyse property disputes involving unequal contributions and the absence of a declaration of trust.
Tan Yok Koon v Tan Choo Suan and another and other appealsSingapore Court of AppealYes[2017] 1 SLR 654SingaporeCited for the 'new approach' which allows parties’ subsequent conduct to be admitted as evidence.
Low Gim Siah and others v Low Geok Khim and anotherSingapore Court of AppealYes[2007] 1 SLR(R) 795SingaporeCited for the principle that the strength of the presumption of advancement varies according to the facts of each case.
Phosagro Asia Pte Ltd v Piattchanine, IouriCourt of AppealYes[2016] 5 SLR 1052SingaporeCited for the limited circumstances in which Section 108 of the Evidence Act should be invoked.
Browne v DunnN/AYes(1893) 6 R 67N/ACited for the principle that evidence should be put to the other party for response or explanation.
Sudha Natrajan v The Bank of East Asia LtdN/AYes[2017] 1 SLR 141SingaporeCited for the principle that evidence should be put to the other party for response or explanation.
In re Roberts, deceasedN/AYes[1946] Ch 1N/ACited as one of the traditional categories where a strong presumption of advancement applies.
URF and another v URHHigh CourtYes[2020] 3 SLR 314SingaporeCited as the basis for the Plaintiff's view that the declarations should be proceeded with in separate proceedings in the High Court.
Pecore v PecoreN/AYes(2007) 279 DLR (4th) 513N/ACited for the principle that the burden of proving that the transfer was not intended to be a gift, is on the challenger to the transfer.
Murless v FranklinN/AYes(1818) 1 Swans 13N/ACited for the principle that possession taken by the father at the time would amount to evidence sufficient to rebut the presumption of advancement.
Sidmouth v SidmouthN/AYes[1840] 2 Beav 447N/ACited for the principle that if the father had intended to retain the absolute dominion in himself, it is probable he would have taken care to extend the power so as to enable himself to sell and transfer.
Yeo Kia Yong and others v Yeo Kia HockN/AYes[1998] 2 SLR(R) 602SingaporeCited for the principle that the retention of the title deeds can be good evidence of an intention to retain the beneficial interest in the property.
Chua Cheow Tien v Chua Geok Eng and anotherN/AYes[1968-1970] SLR(R) 139SingaporeCited for the principle that the retention of the title deeds can be good evidence of an intention to retain the beneficial interest in the property.
Scawin v ScawinN/AYes(1841) 1 Y & CCC 65N/ACited for the principle that the retention of the title deeds can be good evidence of an intention to retain the beneficial interest in the property.
Warren v Gurney and anotherN/AYes[1944] 2 All ER 472N/ACited for the principle that the retention of the title deeds can be good evidence of an intention to retain the beneficial interest in the property.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
No applicable rules

14. Applicable Statutes

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

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

  • Resulting Trust
  • Presumption of Advancement
  • Beneficial Ownership
  • Power of Attorney
  • Tenant in Common
  • Estate
  • Half-Share
  • Property

15.2 Keywords

  • Resulting Trust
  • Presumption of Advancement
  • Beneficial Ownership
  • Property
  • Singapore
  • High Court

17. Areas of Law

Area NameRelevance Score
Resulting Trusts85
Trust Law80
Presumption of Advancement75
Family Law70
Interest in land65
Property Law60

16. Subjects

  • Trusts
  • Property Law
  • Family Law