Salaya Kalairani v Appangam Govindhasamy: Resulting Trusts, Constructive Trusts, Acquiescence, Laches, and Limitation Act
This case involves a dispute between Salaya Kalairani, the legal representative of the estate of Tey Siew Choon, and Appangam Govindhasamy, the legal representative of the estate of T Govindasamy, over the ownership of a property at 24 Cuff Road. The Appellate Division of the High Court heard appeals from both sides after the Judge below allowed the plaintiffs' claim in part and dismissed Kalairani's counterclaim. Kalairani appealed the order for the property to be sold and the dismissal of her counterclaim, while the plaintiffs appealed the dismissal of their claim for an account and inquiry of rental proceeds. The court dismissed Kalairani's appeal and allowed the plaintiffs' appeal in part, ordering Kalairani to account for rent received from the property from 24 September 2015, after deduction of reasonable expenses.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
Appellate Division of the High Court1.2 Outcome
Appeal dismissed in part.
1.3 Case Type
Civil
1.4 Judgment Type
Grounds of Decision
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
Appeal concerning property ownership dispute involving resulting and constructive trusts, acquiescence, laches, and the Limitation Act. Appeal dismissed in part.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Salaya Kalairani (legal representative of the estate of Tey Siew Choon, deceased) | Appellant, Respondent | Individual | Appeal dismissed in part | Partial | |
| Appangam Govindhasamy (legal representative of the estate of T Govindasamy, deceased) | Respondent, Appellant, Plaintiff | Individual | Appeal allowed in part | Partial | |
| Subbaiyan Govindasamy (legal representative of the estate of T Govindasamy, deceased) | Respondent, Appellant, Plaintiff | Individual | Appeal allowed in part | Partial | |
| Kalaichelvi C w/o Chidambaram M (co-administrator of the estate of T Govindasamy, deceased) | Respondent, Appellant, Plaintiff | Individual | Appeal allowed in part | Partial | |
| Selvadurai Manickam (co-administrator of the estate of T Govindasamy, deceased) | Respondent, Appellant, Plaintiff | Individual | Appeal allowed in part | Partial |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Woo Bih Li | Judge of the Appellate Division | No |
| Valerie Thean | Judge of the High Court | Yes |
| Andre Maniam | Judge of the High Court | No |
4. Counsels
4. Facts
- Tey and TG purchased the Property as tenants-in-common in equal shares on 28 May 1970.
- TG passed away on 10 October 1993, while Tey passed away on 24 May 2015.
- The plaintiffs sought an order for the sale of the Property and an account of rental proceeds.
- Kalairani counterclaimed for a declaration that TG held his half-share in the Property on trust for Tey.
- The Judge ordered the Property to be sold and the net proceeds to be distributed equally between TG’s estate and Tey’s estate.
- The Judge dismissed the plaintiffs’ claim for an account of rental proceeds, finding that this claim was barred by laches.
- The court dismissed AD 117 and allowed AD 118 in part, ordering Kalairani to account for rent received from 24 September 2015.
5. Formal Citations
- Salaya Kalairani (legal representative of the estate of Tey Siew Choon, deceased) and anothervAppangam Govindhasamy (legal representative of the estate of T Govindasamy, deceased) and others and another appeal, Civil Appeals Nos 117 of 2022 and 118 of 2022, [2023] SGHC(A) 40
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Tey Siew Choon and Salaya s/o Vengdalamandor married. | |
| Salaya s/o Vengdalamandor died. | |
| Tey and T Govindasamy purchased 24 Cuff Road as tenants-in-common. | |
| Mortgage taken out and lodged against the Property. | |
| Mortgage taken out and lodged against the Property. | |
| Mortgage taken out and lodged against the Property. | |
| T Govindasamy passed away. | |
| Power of attorney (1993 POA) was signed by TG’s wife and sons. | |
| Tey brought another power of attorney to India (the “1995 POA”). | |
| Manickam gave notice to Tey, through his lawyer, that he was revoking the 1993 POA. | |
| Tey executed a will. | |
| Manickam Govindasamy passed away. | |
| Tey Siew Choon passed away. | |
| Kalairani obtained a Grant of Probate of the Will. | |
| The three mortgages over the Property were discharged. | |
| The plaintiffs obtained a Grant of Letters of Administration of TG’s estate. | |
| The plaintiffs commenced HC/OS 971/2021 which was later converted into Suit 107. | |
| AD 117 was dismissed and AD 118 was allowed in part. | |
| Grounds of decision were delivered. |
7. Legal Issues
- Resulting Trust
- Outcome: The court held that Kalairani had failed to prove that Tey had paid the full purchase price of the Property such that TG held the Property on a purchase price resulting trust for Tey.
- Category: Substantive
- Constructive Trust
- Outcome: The court held that Kalairani had failed to prove that TG and Tey shared a common intention for TG to hold his half-share in the Property on trust for Tey.
- Category: Substantive
- Acquiescence
- Outcome: The court dismissed Kalairani’s defence of acquiescence for being unclear and because there was insufficient evidence of acquiescence.
- Category: Substantive
- Laches
- Outcome: The court initially held that the plaintiffs were barred by laches from pursuing their claim for an account of the rental received by Kalairani and Tey after TG’s death, but later allowed the plaintiffs to seek an account of rent under s 73A of the CLPA, subject to the defence of limitation.
- Category: Substantive
- Limitation
- Outcome: The court allowed Kalairani to plead and rely upon the defence of limitation under s 6(2) of the Limitation Act, limiting the account to commence from 24 September 2015, being six years prior to the date the action was filed.
- Category: Procedural
8. Remedies Sought
- Order for sale of the Property
- Account and inquiry of all rental proceeds of the Property received since TG’s death from Kalairani
- Declaration that TG held his half-share in the Property on trust for Tey
- Order for TG’s half-share to be transferred to Tey’s estate
9. Cause of Actions
- Claim for sale of property
- Claim for account and inquiry of rental proceeds
10. Practice Areas
- Commercial Litigation
- Real Estate Law
- Trusts and Estates
11. Industries
- Real Estate
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Appangam Govindhasamy (legal representative of the estate of T Govindasamy, deceased) and others v Salaya Kalairani and another | High Court | Yes | [2023] SGHC 91 | Singapore | The Judge explained the reasons for his decision in this case, which was the basis for the appeals. |
| United Overseas Bank Ltd v Bebe bte Mohammad | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2006] 4 SLR(R) 884 | Singapore | Cited for the holding that s 46(2)(c) of the LTA only applies to express trusts, and its obiter dicta that the court should be slow to engraft onto the LTA personal equities that were not referable directly or indirectly to the exceptions in s 46(2) of the LTA. |
| Lau Siew Kim v Yeo Guan Chye Terence and another | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2008] 2 SLR(R) 108 | Singapore | Cited as the Court of Appeal has expressly considered resulting and constructive trusts. |
| Chan Yuen Lan v See Fong Mun | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2014] 3 SLR 1048 | Singapore | Cited for setting out a framework for dealing with common intention constructive trusts. |
| Loo Chay Sit v Estate of Loo Chay Loo, deceased | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2010] 1 SLR 286 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the indefeasibility of title is a presumption, and it is open to parties to prove that the facts reflect evidence of a resulting or constructive trust. |
| Strelly v Winson | N/A | Yes | (1685) 23 ER 480 | N/A | Cited by the plaintiffs as authority for the proposition that a co-owner is liable in equity to account to other owners for profits received from the shared property. |
| Forgeard v Shanahan | New South Wales Court of Appeal | Yes | (1994) 35 NSWLR 206 | Australia | Cited as the New South Wales Court of Appeal declined to follow Strelly as it had not been subsequently relied on or noticed. |
| Cheung Lai Mui v Cheung Wai Shing and others | Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal | Yes | [2021] HKCFA 19 | Hong Kong | Cited as the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal held that there is “no new, free-standing ‘modern approach’” to claims by one co-owner against another for an account of rent. |
| Aw Chee Peng v Aw Chee Loo | High Court | Yes | [2022] 5 SLR 451 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that no fiduciary relationship arises merely from the relationship of co-owners. |
| Teh Siew Hua v Tan Kim Chiong | High Court | Yes | [2010] 4 SLR 123 | Singapore | Cited for the holding that acquiescence and laches were inapplicable to a claim for a statutory remedy under s 112(4) of the Women’s Charter. |
| BMI v BMJ | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2018] 1 SLR 43 | Singapore | Cited for affirming that “the express words of s 112(4) preclude the application of the time-bars under the Limitation Act as well as the equitable defences of acquiescence or laches”. |
| Genelabs Diagnostics Pte Ltd v Institut Pasteur and another | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2000] 3 SLR(R) 530 | Singapore | Cited for considering acquiescence as a defence against a claim for patent infringement under the Patents Act. |
| Tan Yong San v Neo Kok Eng | High Court | Yes | [2011] SGHC 30 | Singapore | Cited for comparing the doctrines of acquiescence and laches, and holding that while laches was confined to resisting claims for equitable relief, acquiescence was not. |
| Koh Wee Meng v Trans Eurokars Pte Ltd | High Court | Yes | [2014] 3 SLR 663 | Singapore | Cited for considering that acquiescence could function as a defence against a statutory claim under the Sale of Goods Act. |
| Ho Yew Kong v Sakae Holdings Ltd and other appeals and other matters | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2018] 2 SLR 333 | Singapore | Cited for dealing with a claim for minority oppression under the Companies Act and citing with approval Genelabs Diagnostics and Tan Yong San. |
| Orr v Ford | N/A | Yes | [1989] 84 ALR 146 | N/A | Cited for the term acquiescence has been used in varying contexts by many courts and for that reason has been described as possessing “a chameleon-like quality”. |
| Audi Construction Pte Ltd v Kian Hiap Construction Pte Ltd | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2018] 1 SLR 317 | Singapore | Cited for laying down instructive principles on the doctrine of waiver. |
| Abraham Aaron Issac v Management Corporation Strata Title Plan No 664 | Court of Appeal | Yes | [1999] 2 SLR(R) 287 | Singapore | Cited for viewing waiver as a form of estoppel. |
| Meng Leong Development Pte Ltd v Jip Hong Trading Co Pte Ltd | Privy Council | Yes | [1983–1984] SLR(R) 668 | Singapore | Cited for equating abandonment with the doctrine of election. |
| Su Emmanuel v Emmanuel Priya Ethel Anne and another | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2016] 3 SLR 1222 | Singapore | Cited for the principles elucidated by the Court of Appeal in determining whether a partition of property should be allowed. |
| Chng Weng Wah v Goh Bak Heng | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2016] 2 SLR 464 | Singapore | Cited for summarising the doctrine of laches. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| No applicable rules |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Land Titles Act (Cap 157, 1994 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| Conveyancing and Law of Property Act (Cap 61, 1994 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| Limitation Act (Cap 163, 1996 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Resulting trust
- Constructive trust
- Acquiescence
- Laches
- Limitation Act
- Tenants-in-common
- Power of attorney
- Indefeasibility of title
- Equitable duty to account
- Section 73A of the Conveyancing and Law of Property Act
15.2 Keywords
- Property
- Trust
- Equity
- Land
- Rental
- Singapore
- Appeal
17. Areas of Law
| Area Name | Relevance Score |
|---|---|
| Civil Procedure | 70 |
| Trust Law | 65 |
| Acquiescence | 60 |
| Laches | 55 |
| Resulting Trusts | 50 |
| Limitation | 50 |
| Property Law | 50 |
| Constructive trusts | 45 |
| Estoppel | 40 |
| Succession Law | 30 |
16. Subjects
- Property Law
- Trust Law
- Equity
- Civil Procedure