Agreements signed by minors are void, and a valid Distribution Order remains binding until set aside, impacting trust creation principles.

JUDGMENT

See Mee Chun JCA:

Introduction

[1] This is an appeal by the Appellant/Defendant against the decision of the High Court (HC) in allowing the claim of the Plaintiffs/Respondents. We allowed the appeal and now give our reasons.

Parties

[2] The Appellant is the administrator of the estate of the late Si Ching Boon (deceased). The deceased was his father who passed away in January 2018, after the claim was filed in December 2017.

[3] The Respondents are the brothers of the deceased. Together with another brother by the name of Si Kiam Joo and ten other sisters, they were the children of Mdm Chei Chan, deceased since 13 November 1979.

Background Facts

The Lands

[4] In her lifetime, Mdm Chei Chan owned two pieces of land, GM 247, Lot 5354 and GM 248, Lot 5582, both in Mukim Labu, District of Seremban (the Lands). The Lands contained the following land use, express conditions and restriction in interest:

"Kategori Kegunaan Tanah: Pertanian

Syarat Nyata: Tanah ini hendaklah digunakan untuk tanaman jangka panjang dusun sahaja.

Sekatan Kepentingan:

i) Tanah ini tertakluk kepada Akta Tanah 1960 (GSA) dan tidak boleh dipindah milik kecuali bersekali dengan tapak rumah dan ladang kepada penerima sama;

ii) Tanah ini tidak boleh dipindahmilik, dipajak dan digadai kecuali mendapat kebenaran Pihak Berkuasa Negeri;

iii) Tanah ini tidak boleh dipajak, diberikan pajakan kecil, dipecah sempadan atau dipindahmilik kepada lebih daripada seorang; dan

iv) Tanah ini mestilah ditadbirkan oleh Lembaga Kemajuan Tanah Persekutuan, sebuah badan berkanun yang ditubuhkan di bawah Undang-Undang Kemajuan Tanah 1956 (No 20/1956) mengikut syarat-syarat yang diperuntukkan di dalam perjanjian yang ditandatangani oleh pemilik dengan lembaga tersebut atau lain-lain badan yang ditetapkan oleh Kerajaan Negeri."

Distribution Order Dated 24 April 1987

[5] After the death of Mdm Chei Chan, the siblings intended to apply to the District Land Administrator for the distribution of the Lands. Due to the restriction that the Lands could only be transferred to one person, all the beneficiaries signed a waiver of their rights, to the deceased, as the male son of Mdm Chei Chan.

[6] The Distribution Order dated 24 April 1987(DO) for the Lands was issued with the deceased listed as being entitled to them. Subsequently, the deceased was registered as the proprietor of the Lands.

Undated Agreements On The Lands

[7] There were two undated agreements signed by the deceased, the Respondents and Si Kiam Joo (the Agreements). One was in respect of Lot 5354 and the other in respect of Lot 5582. In both the Agreements, it was agreed that the Lands were to be divided into five pieces of equal size so that each one brother would own a piece.

[8] The Agreements were stamped on 4 December 1987.

Respondents' Claim And The Defence

[9] The Respondents' claim is premised on the DO arising from which the Agreements were signed which created a trust in the Respondents and Si Kiam Joo.

[10] The reliefs sought are essentially for a declaration that the deceased held 4/5 of the Lands for the benefit and that of Si Kiam Joo, who has since passed away; that the Respondents were the beneficial owner of 3/5 of the Lands and the estate of Si Kiam Joo was 1/5 beneficial owner of the Lands; the Lands to be disposed of by a public auction at a price to be determined by an auctioneer and the proceeds to be divided equally; and other consequential relief.

[11] The defence raised was that when Si Kiam Joo signed the waiver and the Agreements, he was a minor. He was then 16 years 7 months and 17 years 3 months, respectively. This rendered the waiver a nullity with the result being that a constructive trust arose and the deceased held 1/5 share in the Lands in favour of the minor Si Kiam Joo. Due to the minor's age at the time of the Agreements, these Agreements too were null and void. The Respondents also had no right to claim for the estate of Si Kiam Joo.

Decision Of The HC

[12] The grounds of judgment (GOJ) of the HC Judge can be