Back
2021 MarsdenLR 4220
HIGH COURT MALAYA PULAU PINANG
SUCILA DEVI KRISHNAN V CHIHTRA N VASUDEVAN NAIR
[Originating Summons No: PA-24NCVC-742-10-2020]
The court established that the caveator must show a serious question for trial while maintaining the status quo until the determination of legitimate interests in property, particularly regarding burial sites and trusts.
Headnote:(A) National Land Code – Section 323 – Caveat application – Plaintiff sought to maintain caveats on properties alleging they serve as a burial ground and were intended to be held in trust for family – The deceased's alleged intention to create a trust was supported by evidence including family burial practices – The defendant contended that there was no knowledge of such trust and claimed sole rights to properties per a Last Will – It is required for the caveator to establish their interest and maintain status quo, as per established legal principles. (Paras 8, 14, 15)
(B) Caveats – Legal principles – The onus lies on the plaintiff to show a serious question for trial and that it favors maintaining the status quo – Three stages of inquiry established where caveator must demonstrate the requirements for a caveat to persist – Balancing convenience against potential harm of removing caveat without thorough examination is essential. (Paras 9, 10, 17)
Facts of the case: Plaintiff's deceased father, Krishnan, inherited several properties and allegedly intended them to be preserved for family burial; the defendant, his widow, contended that properties were inherited and she lacked knowledge of any trust arrangement – Caveats were lodged due to fears of property disposal. (Paras 2, 4, 5)
Findings of Court: Plaintiff demonstrated sufficient evidence of interest in properties as burial grounds thus allowing the maintenance of a caveat. (Paras 14, 17)
Issues: The main issues included whether the deceased intended to create a trust for the properties and whether the plaintiff had a legitimate claim to a caveatable interest. (Paras 15)
Ratio Decidendi: The court reaffirmed that caveators must establish a serious question for trial and addressed the significance of balancing convenience against the potential impact of property disposal during ongoing disputes. (Paras 8, 9, 17)
Result: Application to maintain caveats allowed with costs.
JUDGMENT
[1] Enclosure 1 is an application by the plaintiff to maintain the caveats lodged over four lots of land held under GM 34 Lot 671, GM 38 Lot 670,GM 665 Lot 111 and GM 692 Lot 672 Mukim 05, Seberang Perai Selatan, Pulau Pinang ("properties") respectively pending the disposal of Civil Suit PA-22NCVC-190-10-2020 ("Suit 190").
[2] The late Krishnan s/o MM Muthu (plaintiff's father) inherited the properties from his late father. He had bequeathed the properties to his son Muthu Kumar a/l M Krishnan (deceased/plaintiff's brother). Some parts of the properties are being used as a burial ground for the family of MM Muthu s/oManavelan (plaintiff's grandfather). Upon the demise of Krishnan the deceased took out a probate and had the properties vested in his name.
[3] The plaintiff alleges that the deceased had made known to hissiblings of his intention to hold the properties in trust and preserve the sameas a burial ground for the descendants of MM Muthu s/o Manavelan. He was furtheralleged to have told his siblings that they would subsequently take over fromhim and to hold the properties in trust. On 6 April 2015 the deceased marriedthe defendant. Slightly over a year later on 11 September 2016 the deceasedpassed away. According to his family the deceased had left a will, however thedefendant claimed that she had no knowledge of it.
[4] On 12 October 2016 the defendant called the plaintiff for a meeting where she informed the plaintiff and those in attendance that she will hand over the properties to be held in trust to the plaintiff and her siblings. A letter drafted to that effect was prepared allegedly at the behest of the defendant and was given to her for her signature. Nevertheless the letter was never returned to the plaintiff. Subsequently the defendant applied for and granted the Letter of Administration in respect of the deceased's estate. The plaintiff fearing that the defendant would dispose of the properties, had lodged caveats on the same.
[5] On 17 September 2020 the plaintiff received a notice under s 19C dated 19 August 2020 from the Seberang Perai Selatan Land Office stating that the defendant had applied to remove the said caveats. Hence, she filed Suit 190 on 7 October 2020 against the defendant and the estate of the deceased and followed by this application on 16 October 2020.
[6] In Form 19B and verified by her statutory declaration, the plaintiff in claiming that she has a caveatable interest alleges that she has to protect the interest of the family relied on the following grounds:
(a) the properties are the burial ground and memorial site for their family and owned by the family;
(b) the deceased was only the administrator;
(c) the family home is on GM 113 Lot 748 and GM 642 Lot 897;
(d) GM 38 Lot 670 has been leased out to Twelve Stranddna Sdn Bhd.
[7] The defendant in resisting this application cites the following:
(a) she has no knowledge of the said properties were meant for a burial ground or any trust to be created;
(b) the said properties and other land being the rest and residue of the estate had been inherited by the deceased pursuant to the wishes of his late father as expressed in his Last Will and Testament;
(c) the Last Will and Testament of the late Krishnan s/o MM Muthuwas never challenged by the plaintiff and that the plaintiff and her siblings had already received their shares of the estate of their late father;
(d) as regards the meeting on 12 October 2016 she agreed to surrender GM 113 Lot 748 and GM 642 Lot 897 but denied agreeing to transfer the said properties or signing any letter to give effect to the same;
(e) being the wife of the deceased she has the sole right over the said properties and had never expressed any intention to abandon her interest;
(f) the deceased in fact had entered into a lease agreement with a company known as Twelve Stranddna Sdn Bhd and a factory has since been constructed on GM 38 Lot 670 and had intended to sell GM 38 Lot 670 to the said comp
