Che’som Binti Abdullah v Qurratu Ain Binti Mohamed Yusope: Undue Influence in Property Transfer Dispute
In Che’som Binti Abdullah v Qurratu Ain Binti Mohamed Yusope, the General Division of the High Court of Singapore dismissed Mdm Che’som’s claim against her daughter, Mdm Ain, to set aside a property transfer. Mdm Che’som argued fraudulent misrepresentation, negligent misrepresentation, undue influence, mistake, and non est factum. The court found Mdm Che’som understood the transfer documents and her consent was not vitiated. The court dismissed the claim.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
General Division of the High Court1.2 Outcome
Claim Dismissed
1.3 Case Type
Civil
1.4 Judgment Type
Grounds of Decision
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
A mother's claim to rescind a property transfer to her daughter based on undue influence was dismissed. The court found the mother understood the transfer.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Che’som Binti Abdullah | Claimant | Individual | Claim Dismissed | Lost | Muhammad Imran Bin Abdul Rahim, Kuek Zihui |
| Qurratu Ain Binti Mohamed Yusope | Defendant | Individual | Judgment for Defendant | Won | Balakrishnan Chitra |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Valerie Thean | Judge | Yes |
4. Counsels
| Counsel Name | Organization |
|---|---|
| Muhammad Imran Bin Abdul Rahim | Eldan Law LLP |
| Kuek Zihui | Eldan Law LLP |
| Balakrishnan Chitra | Legal Matrix LLC |
4. Facts
- Mdm Che’som and her husband, Mr Yusope, purchased the property in 1996 as joint tenants.
- In 2017, Mdm Che’som and Mr Yusope transferred ownership to include their daughter, Mdm Ain, as a joint tenant.
- Mdm Ain obtained a housing loan from HDB to refinance the property's mortgage.
- Mdm Che’som claimed she did not understand the implications of adding Mdm Ain as a joint tenant.
- Mdm Che’som contended she relied on Mdm Ain to handle the transaction and reduce monthly loan payments.
- Mdm Ain claimed Mr Yusope requested her help to take over the property and Mdm Che’som was aware and agreeable.
- The court found Mdm Che’som understood the transfer documents and her consent was not vitiated.
5. Formal Citations
- Che’som bte Abdullah v Qurratu Ain bte Mohamed Yusope, Originating Claim No 214 of 2023, [2025] SGHC 7
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Marriage of Mdm Che’som to Mr Yusope | |
| Property purchased in joint names of Mdm Che’som and Mr Yusope | |
| Mr Yusope's health deteriorated | |
| First HDB Letter issued | |
| First HDB Meeting held | |
| Second HDB Letter issued | |
| Second HDB Meeting held | |
| Mdm Che’som’s eldest son moved back to the Property | |
| Mdm Ain remarried | |
| Mr Yusope passed away | |
| Quarrel between Mdm Che’som, Mr Is Haans and Mdm Ain | |
| Mdm Ain and Mr Naser left the Property | |
| Mdm Ain filed a police report | |
| Mdm Ain applied for a Personal Protection Order and a Domestic Exclusion Order | |
| Mdm Che’som filed the present action | |
| Notes of Evidence | |
| Notes of Evidence | |
| Notes of Evidence | |
| Defendant’s Submissions | |
| Claimant’s Written Closing Submissions | |
| Defendant’s Reply Submissions | |
| Claimant’s Written Reply Submissions | |
| Judgment |
7. Legal Issues
- Undue Influence
- Outcome: The court found that a relationship of trust and confidence existed between the mother and daughter, but the transfer did not call for an explanation, and therefore no presumption of undue influence arose.
- Category: Substantive
- Related Cases:
- [2019] 1 SLR 349
- Misrepresentation
- Outcome: The court found that the claimant failed to prove that any misrepresentation by Mdm Ain was still operative when she signed the Completion Documents.
- Category: Substantive
- Related Cases:
- [2001] 2 SLR(R) 435
- [2024] 3 SLR 759
- Mistake
- Outcome: The court found that the claimant failed to prove that she had operated under a mistake as to the terms of the Completion Documents.
- Category: Substantive
- Related Cases:
- [2005] 1 SLR(R) 502
- Non Est Factum
- Outcome: The court found that the claimant failed to prove that there was a radical difference between what was signed and what was thought to be signed.
- Category: Substantive
- Related Cases:
- [2015] 5 SLR 62
8. Remedies Sought
- Rescission of Transfer
- Rectification of Land Register
9. Cause of Actions
- Fraudulent Misrepresentation
- Negligent Misrepresentation
- Undue Influence
- Mistake
- Non Est Factum
10. Practice Areas
- Civil Litigation
- Real Estate Law
11. Industries
- Real Estate
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| BOM v BOK and another appeal | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2019] 1 SLR 349 | Singapore | Cited for the principles to establish undue influence by presumption. |
| Panatron Pte Ltd and another v Lee Cheow Lee and another | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2001] 2 SLR(R) 435 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that a misrepresentation must be operative on the representee when entering the contract. |
| Low Sing Khiang v LogicMills Learning Centre Pte Ltd and others | High Court | Yes | [2024] 3 SLR 759 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that a misrepresentation must be operative on the representee when entering the contract. |
| Chwee Kin Keong and others v Digilandmall.com Pte Ltd | High Court | Yes | [2005] 1 SLR(R) 502 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that to vitiate a contract for mistake, a claimant must prove that she had operated under a mistake as to a sufficiently important or fundamental term of the contract. |
| Mahidon Nichiar bte Mohd Ali and others v Dawood Sultan Kamaldin | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2015] 5 SLR 62 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that for non est factum to be made out, there must be a radical difference between what was signed and what was thought to be signed. |
| Royal Bank of Scotland plc v Etridge (No 2) | House of Lords | Yes | [2002] 2 AC 773 | United Kingdom | Cited for the principle that a transaction that calls for an explanation is one that cannot be reasonably accounted for on the ground of friendship, relationship, charity or other ordinary motives on which ordinary men act. |
| Goh Yng Yng Karen (executrix of the estate of Liew Khoon Fong (alias Liew Fong), deceased) v Goh Yong Chiang Kelvin | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2021] 3 SLR 896 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the inquiry into whether a transaction calls for an explanation is a fact-sensitive inquiry. |
| Damodaran s/o Subbarayan v Rogini w/o Subbarayan | High Court | Yes | [2020] 5 SLR 1409 | Singapore | Cited as an example of a case where a joint tenancy was severed. |
| Lee Hwee Khim Rosalind v Lee Sai Khim and others | High Court | Yes | [2011] SGHC 64 | Singapore | Cited as an example of a case where a joint tenancy was severed. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| No applicable rules |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Land Titles Act 1993 | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Joint Tenancy
- Undue Influence
- Housing and Development Board
- Transfer Application
- Completion Documents
- HDB Loan
- Refinance
- Instrument of Transfer
- Mortgage
- Non Est Factum
15.2 Keywords
- Undue Influence
- Property Transfer
- Joint Tenancy
- Singapore
- HDB
- Family Dispute
16. Subjects
- Real Estate
- Contract Law
- Family Law
- Trusts
17. Areas of Law
- Contract Law
- Undue Influence
- Property Law