Appangam Govindhasamy v Salaya Kalairani: Resulting & Constructive Trusts Dispute Over Shophouse

In the General Division of the High Court of Singapore, Suit No 107 of 2022, Appangam Govindhasamy, Subbaiyan Govindasamy, Selvadurai Manickam, and Kalaichelvi C w/o Chidambaram M, legal representatives and co-administrators of the estate of T Govindasamy (TG), sued Salaya Kalairani, both in her personal capacity and as the legal representative of the estate of Tey Siew Choon, over a dispute concerning a shophouse at 24 Cuff Road. The plaintiffs sought an order for the sale of the property and distribution of proceeds, and an account of rental proceeds. The defendants counterclaimed, seeking a declaration that TG held his half-share on trust for Tey's estate. On 6 April 2023, the court dismissed the defendants’ counterclaim and the plaintiffs’ claim for an account and inquiry of rental proceeds, ordering the property to be sold and the net sale proceeds to be distributed equally between TG’s estate and Tey’s estate.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

General Division of the High Court

1.2 Outcome

Counterclaim dismissed; Property to be sold with net proceeds distributed equally between the estates.

1.3 Case Type

Civil

1.4 Judgment Type

Grounds of Decision

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

A dispute over a shophouse share led to a resulting and constructive trust claim. The court dismissed the counterclaim, ordering the property's sale and equal distribution of proceeds.

1.7 Decision Date

5 April 2023

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party Name	Role	Type	Outcome	Outcome Type	Counsels
Appangam Govindhasamy	Plaintiff, Defendant in Counterclaim	Individual	Claim for an account and inquiry of rental proceeds dismissed	Lost	Mohamed Baiross of I.R.B Law LLP Joshua Chow Shao Wei of I.R.B Law LLP
Subbaiyan Govindasamy	Plaintiff, Defendant in Counterclaim	Individual	Claim for an account and inquiry of rental proceeds dismissed	Lost	Mohamed Baiross of I.R.B Law LLP Joshua Chow Shao Wei of I.R.B Law LLP
Selvadurai Manickam	Plaintiff, Defendant in Counterclaim	Individual	Claim for an account and inquiry of rental proceeds dismissed	Lost	Mohamed Baiross of I.R.B Law LLP Joshua Chow Shao Wei of I.R.B Law LLP
Kalaichelvi C w/o Chidambaram M	Plaintiff, Defendant in Counterclaim	Individual	Claim for an account and inquiry of rental proceeds dismissed	Lost	Mohamed Baiross of I.R.B Law LLP Joshua Chow Shao Wei of I.R.B Law LLP
Salaya Kalairani	Defendant, Plaintiff in Counterclaim	Individual	Counterclaim dismissed	Lost	Joel Wee Tze Sing of CNPLaw LLP Tan Jin Yi of CNPLaw LLP Subramaniam Pillai of CNPLaw LLP Tan Guo Chin, Darren of CNPLaw LLP

3. Judges

Judge Name	Title	Delivered Judgment
Chua Lee Ming	Judge	Yes

4. Counsels

Counsel Name	Organization
Mohamed Baiross	I.R.B Law LLP
Joshua Chow Shao Wei	I.R.B Law LLP
Joel Wee Tze Sing	CNPLaw LLP
Tan Jin Yi	CNPLaw LLP
Subramaniam Pillai	CNPLaw LLP
Tan Guo Chin, Darren	CNPLaw LLP

4. Facts

Tey and TG bought the Property as tenants-in-common in equal shares in 1970.
TG informally adopted Tey as his daughter and Tey’s four children as his grandchildren.
Tey obtained powers of attorney from TG's sons to administer TG's estate, but these were later revoked.
Tey's will bequeathed her share in the Property to the 1st defendant.
The plaintiffs sought an order for the sale of the Property and the distribution of the proceeds.
The defendants sought a declaration that TG held his half-share on trust for Tey’s estate.
TG stood as surety for Tey's bank loans secured by mortgages over the Property.

5. Formal Citations

Appangam Govindhasamy (legal representative of the estate of T Govindasamy, deceased) and others v Salaya Kalairani and another, Suit No 107 of 2022, [2023] SGHC 91

6. Timeline

Date	Event
1960-01-01	Tey married SV.
1969-01-01	SV died.
1970-05-28	Tey and TG bought the Property as tenants-in-common.
1971-04-14	Tey and Muthusamy bought 10 Veerasamy Road as tenants-in-common.
1974-11-01	Tey bought 18 Tai Hwan Lane.
1975-09-12	Tey mortgaged the Property to Maybank.
1983-04-15	Tey mortgaged the Property to Maybank.
1983-08-17	Tey bought 50 Clive Street in her sister's name.
1983-11-20	Tey bought 4 Norris Road.
1984-07-23	Tey bought 22 Veerasamy Road in her second son's name.
1984-08-02	Tey mortgaged the Property to Maybank.
1984-11-01	Tey sold 18 Tai Hwan Lane.
1993-10-10	TG died.
1993-12-28	1993 Power of Attorney was signed.
1995-01-01	Tey brought the 1995 Power of Attorney to India.
1996-07-01	Manickam revoked the 1993 Power of Attorney.
2000-11-27	Tey mortgaged 4 Norris to Maybank.
2002-02-28	Tey executed her Will.
2010-09-06	Tey’s sister sold the property at 50 Clive Street.
2015-05-24	Tey died.
2015-06-23	The 1st defendant obtained a Grant of Probate of Tey’s Will.
2015-06-26	Grant of Probate issued.
2015-09-08	10 Veerasamy was transferred to the 1st defendant.
2015-10-21	Mortgages over the Property were discharged.
2015-10-21	Tey’s half-share in the Property was transferred to the 1st defendant.
2015-12-01	The 1st defendant’s three brothers lodged a caveat against her half-share in the Property.
2016-12-05	The mortgage over 4 Norris was discharged.
2016-12-05	4 Norris was transferred to the 1st defendant.
2019-01-01	22 Veerasamy was repossessed by Maybank and sold.
2019-01-01	The estate of Tey's eldest son sold the property at 33 Mulberry Avenue.
2020-10-23	The plaintiffs obtained a Grant of Letters of Administration of TG’s estate.
2022-12-02	Court dismissed the defendants’ counterclaim and ordered the Property to be sold.
2022-12-29	The plaintiffs and defendants filed cross-appeals against the decision.
2023-04-06	Judgment issued.

7. Legal Issues

Resulting Trust
- Outcome: The court dismissed the claim based on resulting trust, finding that the defendants failed to prove that Tey paid the full purchase price for the Property.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
  - Payment of full purchase price
  - Inability of one party to pay
- Related Cases:
  - [2008] 2 SLR(R) 108
Common Intention Constructive Trust
- Outcome: The court found that the defendants failed to prove that TG and Tey shared a common intention that TG was to hold his half-share in the Property on trust for Tey.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
  - Common intention as to beneficial interest
  - Detrimental reliance
- Related Cases:
  - [2014] 3 SLR 1048
  - [2022] 2 SLR 457
Laches
- Outcome: The court held that the plaintiffs were barred by laches from pursuing their claim for an account of the rentals received by the defendants.
- Category: Procedural
- Sub-Issues:
  - Delay
  - Unconscionability
- Related Cases:
  - [2007] 2 SLR(R) 417
Acquiescence
- Outcome: The court rejected the defence of acquiescence.
- Category: Procedural
- Sub-Issues:
  - Standing by and doing nothing
  - Representations to the defendant
  - Estoppel
  - Waiver
  - Abandonment of rights
- Related Cases:
  - [2011] SGHC 30
  - [2014] 3 SLR 663

8. Remedies Sought

Declaration that TG held his half-share on trust for Tey’s estate
Order for sale of the Property
Distribution of proceeds of sale
Account of rental proceeds

9. Cause of Actions

Claim for declaration of trust
Claim for sale of property
Claim for account of rental proceeds

10. Practice Areas

Trust Litigation
Estate Litigation
Property Law

11. Industries

Real Estate

12. Cited Cases

Case Name	Court	Affirmed	Citation	Jurisdiction	Significance
Loo Chay Sit v Estate of Loo Chay Loo, deceased	High Court	Yes	[2010] 1 SLR 286	Singapore	Cited for the principle that the plaintiffs only needed to show that TG was the registered owner of a half-share in the Property.
Lau Siew Kim v Yeo Guan Chye Terence and another	Court of Appeal	Yes	[2008] 2 SLR(R) 108	Singapore	Cited for the presumption of resulting trust.
Chan Yuen Lan v See Fong Mun	Court of Appeal	Yes	[2014] 3 SLR 1048	Singapore	Cited for the explanation of a common intention constructive trust.
Ong Chai Soon v Ong Chai Koon and others	High Court	Yes	[2022] 2 SLR 457	Singapore	Cited for the principle that direct financial contributions to the purchase price are an important consideration but they are not the only basis upon which the court may infer a common intention.
Re Estate of Tan Kow Quee (alias Tan Kow Kwee)	High Court	Yes	[2007] 2 SLR(R) 417	Singapore	Cited regarding the defence of laches, but distinguished on the facts.
Tan Yong San v Neo Kok Eng and others	High Court	Yes	[2011] SGHC 30	Singapore	Cited for the definition of acquiescence.
Kok Wee Meng v Trans Eurokars Pte Ltd	High Court	Yes	[2014] 3 SLR 663	Singapore	Cited for the definition of acquiescence.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
Rules of Court

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute Name	Jurisdiction
Evidence Act 1893	Singapore
Planning Act 1998	Singapore

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

Resulting trust
Constructive trust
Common intention
Laches
Acquiescence
Power of attorney
Tenants-in-common
Surety
Mortgage
Beneficial interest

15.2 Keywords

Trust
Property
Shophouse
Estate
Resulting Trust
Constructive Trust
Singapore
High Court

17. Areas of Law

Area Name	Relevance Score
Trust Law	90
Resulting Trust	85
Constructive Trust	80
Property Law	75
Common Intention Constructive Trust	70
Presumed Resulting Trust	65
Estoppel	60
Acquiescence	55
Limitation	50
Laches	45
Succession Law	40
Civil Procedure	30

16. Subjects

Trusts
Property Law
Equity