Munshi v Saleh: Resulting & Constructive Trusts, Joint Accounts & Property

In Mahmud Ebrahim Kasam Munshi v Mohamed Saleh, the High Court of Singapore addressed a dispute between brothers regarding a joint bank account and a property (JC Court Property) purchased as joint tenants. The plaintiff, Mahmud Ebrahim Kasam Munshi, acting as administrator of their mother's estate, claimed that the defendant, Mohamed Saleh, held these assets on trust for the estate. The court, presided over by Vinodh Coomaraswamy J, found that the defendant held $200,000 from the joint account as "emergency money" and 58.22% of the beneficial interest in the JC Court Property on a presumed resulting trust for the Estate. The court ordered the defendant to account for 58.22% of the net rental income from the JC Court Property from the mother's death until the judgment date. Both parties have appealed the decision.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

General Division of the High Court

1.2 Outcome

Judgment for Plaintiff in part.

1.3 Case Type

Civil

1.4 Judgment Type

Grounds of Decision

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

Brothers dispute ownership of joint bank account and property. Court finds resulting trust over funds and property share, orders accounting.

1.7 Decision Date

26 October 2023

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party Name	Role	Type	Outcome	Outcome Type	Counsels
Mahmud Ebrahim Kasam Munshi	Plaintiff	Individual	Judgment for Plaintiff in part	Partial	Mohammad Shafiq bin Haja Maideen of M Shafiq Chambers LLC
Mohamed Saleh	Defendant	Individual	Partial Loss	Partial

3. Judges

Judge Name	Title	Delivered Judgment
Vinodh Coomaraswamy	Judge of the High Court	Yes

4. Counsels

Counsel Name	Organization
Mohammad Shafiq bin Haja Maideen	M Shafiq Chambers LLC

4. Facts

The plaintiff and defendant are brothers.
The Mother had five children and was dependent on others to conduct her legal and financial affairs.
The defendant opened a joint account with the Mother in 1997 with an initial deposit of $800,000.
In 1999, the defendant and the Mother purchased the JC Court Property as joint tenants.
The purchase price of the JC Court Property was $688,000.
The defendant applied $300,000 from his own funds towards the purchase of the JC Court Property.
The defendant withdrew $480,000 from the joint account on the occasion of the purchase.
The Mother died in August 2017.
In September 2017, the defendant procured his registration as the sole owner of the JC Court Property as the surviving joint tenant.

5. Formal Citations

Mahmud Ebrahim Kasam Munshi v Mohamed Saleh, Suit No 1071 of 2016, [2023] SGHC 309

6. Timeline

Date	Event
1997-01-01	Joint bank account opened by defendant with the Mother.
1999-01-01	JC Court Property purchased by the Mother and defendant as joint tenants.
2000-01-01	Defendant signed undertaking.
2001-09-01	Defendant signed letter of undertaking.
2016-08-01	Plaintiff appointed deputy under the Mental Capacity Act in respect of the Mother.
2016-10-01	Plaintiff commenced action against the defendant in the Mother’s name.
2017-08-01	The Mother died.
2017-09-01	Defendant procured his registration as the sole owner of the JC Court Property.
2021-10-01	Plaintiff secured letters of administration with the will annexed in respect of the Mother’s estate.
2022-04-01	Plaintiff secured leave to carry on action in his own name.
2022-11-01	Action tried before the court.
2023-01-31	Judgment entered for the plaintiff against the defendant.

7. Legal Issues

Presumed Resulting Trust
- Outcome: The court found that the defendant held the legal interest in the joint account on a presumed resulting trust for the Mother and holds 58.22% of the beneficial interest in the JC Court Property on a presumed resulting trust for the Estate.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
  - Unequal contributions to purchase price
  - Rebuttal of presumption of advancement
- Related Cases:
  - [2008] 2 SLR(R) 108
Express Trust
- Outcome: The court found that there was no certainty of intention on the defendant's part to create an express trust over the JC Court Property in favor of the Mother.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
  - Certainty of intention
  - Duress
- Related Cases:
  - [2015] 1 SLR 1097
Constructive Trust
- Outcome: The court found that the defendant did not earn a secret profit in breach of fiduciary duty and that there was no common intention that the defendant would use only the Mother's money to purchase the JC Court Property.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
  - Breach of fiduciary duty
  - Common intention
- Related Cases:
  - [2014] 3 SLR 1048
Presumption of Advancement
- Outcome: The court found that the presumption of advancement arose only weakly and was rebutted by the evidence.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
  - Parent-child relationship
  - Dependency
  - Affection
- Related Cases:
  - [2008] 2 SLR(R) 108

8. Remedies Sought

Declaration of Trust
Accounting
Order for Sale

9. Cause of Actions

Breach of Trust
Accounting

10. Practice Areas

Trust Litigation
Property Law
Civil Litigation

11. Industries

No industries specified

12. Cited Cases

Case Name	Court	Affirmed	Citation	Jurisdiction	Significance
Lau Siew Kim v Yeo Guan Chye Terence and another	Court of Appeal	Yes	[2008] 2 SLR(R) 108	Singapore	Cited for the principle that a presumed resulting trust arises when property is transferred without the intention to benefit the transferee.
Guy Neale and others v Nine Squares Pty Ltd	Court of Appeal	Yes	[2015] 1 SLR 1097	Singapore	Cited for the requirements of certainty in creating an express trust and the principle underlying the imposition of an institutional constructive trust.
The State-Owned Company Yugoimport SDPR (also known as Jugoimport-SDPR) v Westacre Investments Inc and other appeals	Court of Appeal	Yes	[2016] 5 SLR 372	Singapore	Cited for the requirement of a sufficiently certain intention to create a trust.
E C Investment Holding Pte Ltd v Ridout Residence Pte Ltd and another (Orion Oil Ltd and another, interveners)	High Court	Yes	[2011] 2 SLR 232	Singapore	Cited for the elements required to establish economic duress.
Philip Antony Jeyaretnam and another v Kulandaivelu Malayaperumal and others (Thirumurthy Ayernaar Pamabayan, third party; Pramela d/o Govindasamy and another, non-parties)	High Court	Yes	[2020] 3 SLR 738	Singapore	Cited for the concept of an ad hoc fiduciary.
Mona Computer Systems (S) Pte Ltd v Singaravelu Murugan	High Court	Yes	[2014] 1 SLR 847	Singapore	Cited for the principle that a fiduciary must not divert an opportunity that belongs to the beneficiary.
Chan Yuen Lan v See Fong Mun	Court of Appeal	Yes	[2014] 3 SLR 1048	Singapore	Cited for the requirements of a common intention constructive trust.
Lloyds Bank plc v Rosset	House of Lords	Yes	[1991] 1 AC 107	United Kingdom	Cited for the requirement that the common intention must subsist at the time the property is purchased.
Ng So Hang v Wong Sang Woo	High Court	Yes	[2018] SGHC 162	Singapore	Cited for the principle that the common intention must be proven.
Neo Hui Ling v Ang Ah Sew	High Court	Yes	[2012] 2 SLR 831	Singapore	Cited for the principle that only direct contributions to the purchase are relevant for the resulting trust analysis.
Ranjit Singh s/o Ramdarsh Singh (suing as co-executor of the estate of Ramdarsh Singh s/o Danukdhari Singh (alias Ram Darash Singh), deceased and as a beneficiary of the estate) v Harisankar Singh (sued as co-executor of the estate of Ramdarsh Singh s/o Danukdhari Singh (alias Ram Darash Singh) deceased and in his personal capacity)	Court of Appeal	Yes	[2021] SGCA 66	Singapore	Cited for the principle that the presumption of advancement is not weakened if one child is unique.
Low Yin Ni and another v Tay Yuan Wei Jaycie (formerly known as Tay Yeng Choo Jessy) and another)	Court of Appeal	Yes	[2020] SGCA 58	Singapore	Cited for the principle that the presumption of advancement applies in the context of a joint tenancy between a father, a mother, their son and their daughter-in-law.
Tan Chin Hoon and others v Tan Choo Suan (in her personal capacity and as executrix of the estate of Tan Kiam Toen, deceased) and others and other matters	High Court	Yes	[2015] SGHC 306	Singapore	Cited for the principle that the presumption of advancement in a parent-child relationship is capable of applying in favor of a child who is an adult and who is no longer dependent on the parent.
Pecore v Pecore	Supreme Court of Canada	Yes	[2007] 1 SCR 795	Canada	Cited for the principle that the presumption of advancement emerges from both dependency and natural affection.
Ching Mun Fong (executrix of the estate of Tan Geok Tee, deceased) v Liu Cho Chit	Court of Appeal	Yes	[2001] 1 SLR(R) 856	Singapore	Cited for the imposition of a remedial constructive trust.
Westdeutsche Landesbank Girozentrale v Islington LBC	House of Lords	Yes	[1996] 1 AC 669	United Kingdom	Cited for the principle in equity on compound interest.
Young v Sealey	Chancery Division	Yes	[1949] Ch 278	United Kingdom	Cited for the principle that the resulting trust is rebutted as to the remainder.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
Rules of Court (2014 Rev Ed)

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute Name	Jurisdiction
Mental Capacity Act (Cap 177A, 2010 Rev Ed)	Singapore
Evidence Act 1893 (2020 Rev Ed)	Singapore
Civil Law Act 1909 (2020 Rev Ed)	Singapore

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

Trust
Resulting Trust
Constructive Trust
Joint Account
Joint Tenancy
Beneficial Interest
Fiduciary Duty
Presumption of Advancement
Emergency Money
Common Intention

15.2 Keywords

trust
resulting trust
constructive trust
joint account
property
Singapore

17. Areas of Law

Area Name	Relevance Score
Trust Law	95
Presumed Resulting Trust	80
Constructive Trust	75
Estate Administration	70
Common Intention Constructive Trust	65
Civil Procedure	60
Duty to Account	60
Remedial Constructive Trust	55
Express trusts	50
Judgments and Orders	50
Succession Law	40
Costs	30

16. Subjects

Trusts
Property Law
Equity