SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

1946 MarsdenLR 22

TERRELL, JA

TERRELL, JA


LEE POH LIAN NEO
versus
THE CHINESE BANKERS TRUST CO LTD

.

Decided On : 10-28-46

Advocates:
NA Mallal for the plaintiffs.
RCH Lim for the defendants.

Terrell, JA

One Wee Siang Tat died intestate on the 14th March 1901, possessed of certain lands in the District of Toah Payoh, Singapore, on a portion of which there were some family graves. On his death his estate was divided between his widow Ho Sok Choo Neo, his mother Ang Cheng Ann Neo, his sister Wee Guat Choo Neo, and the children of another sister Wee Guat Kin Neo who predeceased Wee Siang Tat. These children are the plaintiffs and one Lee Pang Seng, who has since died an undischarged bankrupt.

By an Indenture dated the 4th March 1922, Ang Cheng Ang Neo, Wee Guat Choo Neo and the four children of Wee Guat Kim Neo conveyed and released to Ho Sok Choo Neo their beneficial interests in the land at Toah Payoh (more particularly described in the schedule thereto) subject to the trusts therein after declared. The deed proceeded as follows:-

"And the said Ho Sok Choo Neo hereby declares that she will henceforth stand possessed of the hereditaments upon trust during the lives of Wee Eng Cheng and Wee Eng Wan and the life of the survivor of them and for the period of twenty-one years after the death of the last survivor of them to permit the said land to be used as a burial ground for the family of the said Wee Siang Tat deceased or any issue or descendant of the said Wee Siang Tat deceased who according to Chinese custom are entitled to be buried in the family burial ground. And upon further trust until the expiration of the said period to receive the rents and profits of the said land and after payment thereout of all outgoings and costs of collecting to apply the net income in the upkeep of the graves upon the said land and generally in or about the maintenance or improvement of the said land and to pay the residue of the net income to the person for the time being in charge of the tablets of the ancestors of the late Wee Siang Tat."

The present trustees of the Indenture are the defendants who were so appointed by an order of Court dated the 19th February 1940, and made in Originating Summons No. 11 of 1940.

Both Ang Cheng Ann Neo and Ho Sok Choo Neo are now dead, and by an order made herein on the 8th April 1940 it was ordered that John Laycock, Chua Tiang Cheng and K. S. Oon the present trustees of the will of Ho Sok Choo Neo deceased, should represent the interests of the estates of Ang Cheng Ann Neo deceased and of Lee Pang Seng deceased, and the interests of all other persons except the plaintiffs beneficially interested in the land comprised in the Indenture or settlement. I take it that they do not, by virtue of this order, represent the interests of the persons (if any) beneficially entitled under the settlement, but such interests are sufficiently represented by the trustees of the settlement who oppose the relief claimed by the plaintiffs and the other settlors.

On the 3rd February 1941 the trustees of the will of Ang Cheng Ann Neo applied for liberty to attend the proceedings. The summons was heard before me on the 17th February 1941. As in my opinion the interests of the estate of Ang Cheng Ann Neo deceased were already sufficiently represented by the previous order of the 8th April 1940, I ordered that the applicants be at liberty to attend the proceedings at their own expense. This order has not yet been drawn up.

The plaintiffs claim (1) a declaration that there is a resulting trust in favour of the next-of-kin of Wee Siang Tat deceased (therein described as the settlors) in respect of the property which is subject to the trusts of the Indenture. Prayer (2) is for a declaration that the trusts have become inoperative. Prayer (4) is for an enquiry as to whether the defendants have a good title to all the property described in the Schedule to the Indenture and for necessary directions.

Prayer (1) does not state the grounds upon which it is alleged that a resulting trust has arisen, but it was argued before me that the Indenture had never taken effect because at the date thereof, namely the 4th day of March 1922,

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top