Back
2013 MarsdenLR 783
COURT OF APPEAL PUTRAJAYA
SEE LEONG CHYE @ SZE LEONG CHYE – Appellant
Versus
SEE EWE LIN – Respondent
[Civil Appeal No: B-02-944-2011]
Co-proprietors cannot evade financial responsibilities for jointly owned property; inconsistent evidence undermines trust claims in co-ownership disputes.
Headnote:(A) National Land Code 1965; Local Government Act 1976; Contracts Act 1950 - Co-proprietors' obligations - Plaintiff incurred conversion costs and outgoings for jointly owned land, claiming reimbursement from brother; Defendant refused, asserting a trust. Court found defenses inconsistent with evidence. (Paras 6, 16, 18, 19, 64)
(B) Trust Law - Trust declaration must be supported by clear evidence; inconsistency in Defendant's claims undermined trust assertion. Court rejected Defendant's claims. (Paras 15, 19, 64)
(C) Limitation - Claims past certain periods barred unless timely demand was made; the Plaintiff's claim for outgoings before 1998 was statute-barred. (Paras 43, 45, 54, 63)
Facts of the case:
Appellant and Respondent are brothers and co-owners of Land. Plaintiff converted land use and incurred expenses, later demanding reimbursement of RM 162,912.50 to which Defendant objected, asserting trust claims. (Paras 1, 3, 5)
Findings of Court:
Court held Plaintiff's share not held in trust for Defendant; Defendant's assertion rejected as lacking in corroborative evidence. Claims for outgoings incurred before statute-barred period were denied. (Paras 64, 65)
Issues: The primary question was the status of Plaintiff's share, whether a trust was correctly declared. Secondary issue involved statute limitations on claims for outgoings incurred before 1998. (Paras 17, 18)
Ratio Decidendi: The trust assertion lacked the evidentiary support required for such declarations; thus, the appeal was granted in favor of the Plaintiff. The claim for expenses before defined limits was rejected. (Paras 64, 65)
Result: Appeal allowed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. background facts regarding land ownership and dispute. (Para 1 , 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 2. co-ownership and notification of expenses (Para 6 , 7 , 12) |
| 3. claims and counterclaims related to trust and reimbursement. (Para 8 , 10 , 11) |
| 4. trust claim concerning property (Para 9) |
[1] The Appellant and the Respondent are brothers. They are the registered co-proprietors (holding equal shares) of a piece of land held under EMR 2884, being Lot 549, in the Mukim and District of Petaling, Selangor ("the Land").
[2] For ease of reference, we shall refer to the parties as they were in the High COURT.
[3] The Land, which was originally subject to the category of land use of agriculture, was converted in 1993 to the category of industry on the application of the Plaintiff, which he claimed was made with the knowledge and consent of the Defendant. The Plaintiff incurred charges and expenses as a result of the application for conversion, including the payment of surveyor's charges, clearing and filling of land and conversion fees.
[4] Before and after the conversion, the Plaintiff had paid all the outgoings in respect of the Land, being the payments under the National Land Code 1965 of the annual land rents ("quit rents") and under the Local Government Act 1976 of the annual rates ("assessment rates").
[5] The Plaintiff had demanded from the Defendant, as the co-proprietor of the land, the sum of RM 162,912.50, being half of the total sums paid by the Plaintiff in respect of the conversion costs and fees and the outgoings incurred in respect of the Land. The Defendant refused to pay.
[6] The Plaintiff then filed this suit on 11 June 2004 seeking a declaration that the Defendant, as half owner of the Land, is liable to pay half of the outgoings and expenses incurred in respect of the Land.
[7] The Plaintiff also claims for the sum of RM 162,912.50, being half the amount he had already incurred in respect of the Land, and interest thereon.
[8] With regard to the declaration sought by the Plaintiff, the Defendant in his Defence and Counterclaim claims that the Plaintiff in fact holds the Plaintiff's share in the Land as a trustee for the Defendant. He claims that the Land was purchased in 1976 by their father at the price of RM 60,000. Of that sum, RM 30,000, according to the Defendant, came from the damages/compensation received in 1975 from the insurance company as a result of an accident in which the Defendant was involved in 1971. The Defendant claims to have become paralysed from the waist down and was bedridden for 3 years.
[9] The Defendant claims that the Land was bought by their father as investment for the Defendant's future needs due to his physical disability as a result of the accident. A half-share in the Land was registered in the Plaintiff's name, according to the Defendant, due to the fact that he (the Defendant) lived in Pulau Pinang whilst the Plaintiff lived in Petaling Jaya, close to the location of the Land and therefore was in a better position to manage the Land.
[10] As for the declaration and the outgoings claimed by the Plaintiff, the Defendant denies that the Plaintiff had incurred the sums and in the alternative pleaded that the Plaintiff's claim is barred by limitation.
[11] In his Counterclaim, the Defendant seeks a declaration that the share held by the Plaintiff is held by the Plaintiff on trust for the Defendant and additionally seeks an order that the Plaintiff be made to execute the necessary documents for the transfer of the share held by the Plaintiff to the Defendant within 14 days of the order, failing which the Senior Assistant Registrar of the High COURT must execute such documents.
[12] By the time the case came to trial, the Land had been transferred to a third party. This gave rise to another suit in which both the Plaintiff and the Defendant got together and sued for a declaration that they are the lawful owners of the Land and the Land had been fraudulently transferred to the first of the defendants in tha
