The Defendants can amend their pleadings to include a limitation defense if it does not cause injustice to the other party.

Kenneth St James JC:

(Amendment Of Defence To Include Defence Of Limitation)

Prelusion

[1] This suit is a dispute among siblings, between a brother on the one side, and two sisters on the other side. The dispute is over the ownership of a house. What is in dispute is whether each of them owns 1/3 of the house, or are the sisters' 2/3rds held on trust for the brother.

[2] The brother sued the sisters. The sisters' counter-sued. After the pleadings were closed, the sisters apply to amend their pleadings to include the defence of limitation. Should their application by allowed?

Plaintiff's Pleaded Facts

[3] The Plaintiff's pleaded claim includes these facts.

[4] In July 1991 (32 years ago), the Plaintiff bought a house for RM70K (Property).

[5] In order to facilitate getting a bank loan, he put the Defendants' (his sisters') names together with his name as the houseowners. The agreement between the Plaintiff and the Defendants was that the Defendants held a 2/3 undivided share in the Property on trust for the Plaintiff.

[6] The Plaintiff got a loan from the bank for RM56K. He alone paid the initial payment of RM14K. And he alone paid all the loan repayments, the quit rent, the assessment and other expenses for the Property.

[7] They all lived on the Property, with their other siblings. But in 1993, the 2nd Defendant got married and moved out of the Property. In 1995, the 1st Defendant got married and moved out too.

[8] In August 2006, the Plaintiff withdrew his EPF money to redeem the Property from the bank. The EPF directly paid the bank the redemption sum, so that the charge over the Property was discharged.

[9] When the Plaintiff wanted to get the Title from the bank, the bank informed him that the Defendants, as co-owners, must sign the required documents. The Plaintiff asked the Defendants to sign the documents but they did not do so.

[10] In 2018, the Plaintiff discovered that in March 2017, the Defendants had discharged the charge and had taken the Title.

[11] In the 2018 and 2019, the Defendants filed two suits in succession to try to sell the Property. The first suit was withdrawn. The second suit was struck out on the Plaintiff's application.

[12] In October 2020, the Plaintiff entered a caveat to protect his rights over the Property.

Reliefs And Remedy Sought

[13] The Plaintiff seeks reliefs and remedies that include:

(1) a Declaration that the Plaintiff is the sole owner of the Property;

(2) a Declaration that the Defendants hold 2/3 of the Property as trustees for the Plaintiff;

(3) an Order that the Defendants' 2/3 share in the Property vests in the Plaintiff;

(4) an Order that the Plaintiff be registered as the sole owner of the Property;

(5) damages.

Defendants' Pleaded Facts

[14] The Defendants' pleaded defence and counterclaim include these facts.

[15] The decision to buy the Property was made by the Plaintiff and the Defendants together. The agreement among them was that each of them would own a 1/3 share in the Property.

[16] They deny that it was the Plaintiff who solely paid the initial RM14K, and the loan repayments. They contributed to the initial payment and the loan repayments.

[17] They deny that they held their 2/3 share on trust for the Plaintiff.

[18] The agreement among the parties was that as the Plaintiff and his family live on the Property, the Plaintiff would pay rent to the Defendants.

Reliefs And Remedy Sought

[19] The Defendants seek reliefs and remedies that include:

(1) an Order to sell the Property without vacant possession, by auction or private treaty, at market value; the net proceeds be divided equally among the parties; the Defendants' solicit