Back
2022 MarsdenLR 1294
HIGH COURT MALAYA KUALA LUMPUR
MATTACKEL SHIBU ALEXANDER – Appellant
Versus
BALBIR KAUR GURDIAL SINGH – Respondent
[Civil Suit No: WA-22NCvC-517-07/2019]
A resulting trust claim requires proof of solely financial contributions and absence of shared intent; a rebuttable presumption exists if evidence indicates mutual intent to share.
Headnote:(A) Equity – Resulting Trust – Legal principles governing resulting trusts – To succeed in claiming a resulting trust, the Plaintiff must prove sole financial contribution towards property purchase with evidence of no intention to grant beneficial interest to the Defendant – Presumption of resulting trust is rebuttable if evidence shows different intent between parties (Paras 54-62).
(B) Joint Purchases and Financial Contributions – The relationship between the parties involved joint investments, shared bank accounts, and financial support indicating mutual intention to share property as a family unit rather than a mere transactional arrangement (Paras 6-66).
(C) Counterclaims – Breach of promise to marry and financial claims – The Court declined to adjudicate on the Defendant's claims regarding breach of promise to marry, finding it moot after ruling on the absence of a resulting trust (Paras 67-73).
Facts of the case: The Plaintiff claims half ownership of properties based on alleged resulting trust, arguing financial contributions from his side; the Defendant counters, asserting shared investment and familial relationship.
Findings of Court: The Defendant is entitled to half shares in various properties and proceeds from sales, reflecting a mutual intent to share rather than a trust arrangement.
Issues: Whether a resulting trust exists based on contributions and nature of the relationship; the relevance of familial involvement and joint financial arrangements.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court emphasized the need to assess underlying intentions in financial contributions and relationships, evidencing a shared commitment beyond mere transaction (Paras 54-66).
Result: The Plaintiff's claim was dismissed, affirming the Defendant's joint ownership rights.
JUDGMENT
(After A Full Trial)
A. Introduction
[1] The present case before this Court is essentially an equity claim for resulting trust in half shares of properties in which the Plaintiff insists that the Defendant holds in trust for the benefit of the Plaintiff.
[2] The alleged existence of this resulting trust is called upon by the Plaintiff on the contention that the Plaintiff has paid most, if not all of the consideration for the purchase of properties, and the Plaintiff's own admission that there has never existed any formal instrument or documentary evidence to prove the parties' mutual agreement to the alleged 'trust'.
[3] On the extreme contrary, the Defendant is of the position that the circumstances surrounding the equal ownership of the properties are far more complex and intimate and are certainly not as dry, transactional, and commercial as the narrative the Plaintiff is seeking to force.
[4] It is the Defendant's case that the Plaintiff's claim is rife with incomplete facts, half-truths, and is grossly (or deliberately lacking) in material facts which are also relevant to appropriately explain the true intent and nature of the Defendant's half-shareholding of the properties (which the Plaintiff alleged to be held on resulting trust for his benefit).
B. Brief Facts Of The Case
[5] The brief facts underlying the Plaintiff's and Defendant's relationship are as follows.
[6] The Plaintiff (Mattaekel Shibu Alexander) is an Indian national and a dental surgeon practicing in Malaysia (and resided in Malaysia since 1997) under the TalentCorp Programme.
[7] Prior to his intimate acquaintance/relationship with the Defendant (Balbir Kaur a/p Gurdial Singh), the Plaintiff was previously already married to his then ex-wife. It was during the brink of this divorce that the Plaintiff had a chance meeting with the Defendant circa 206 to 2007.
[8] It is admitted in both parties' pleadings that the Plaintiff and Defendant continued to at least have relations and cohabited in numerous family homes until September 2017. This impugned relationship bloomed when the Defendant was already 49 years old and ended when the Defendant is around 60 years of age. Safe for this Court to say that the entire breadth of the parties' passionate/amorous courtship stretched along the Defendant's precious twilight or golden years in the final leg of her life.
[9] It is also admitted in both parties' pleadings that throughout the decade plus cohabitation as lovers, both parties have continuously ventured into many joint-purchases and joint-investments in reai estate. A collective endeavour that had spurred many long-term joint-commitments, risks, and liabilities for both the Plaintiff and Defendant, establishment and use of joint bank accounts, mutually beneficial tenancy agreement, which even goes as far as to include the support and personal involvements of family members of the Defendant.
[10] The Plaintiff's general insistence is that the involvement of the Defendant (in the sale and purchase agreements, and the inclusion of the Defendant in a few of the Loan Agreements) were agreed to serve the sole purpose of securing a higher loan amount which the Plaintiff insists that he would not have been able to secure as a foreigner in Malaysia (without the involvement of a Malaysian citizen).
[11] On the extreme contrary, the Defendant's general contention is that her involvements (and even her family members' involvement and the exposure to long term risks in the sale and purchase agreements and loan agreements) have never been a mere dry and transactional arrangement to secure higher loans and instead was a true display of commitment to spousal living and sharing, with the view and promise of marriage.
[12] It is the Defendant's case that the true intention of the joint- purchases was for the parties to have equal shares in the properties so as to build a financially stable and robust family. And indeed this Court is also intrigued to question, if indeed
