Beneficiaries under intestacy have no property interest until estate administration is complete, stressing the necessity of legal processes for asset distribution.

Stephen Chung Hian Guan JCA:

Background Facts

[1] Lal Singh A/L Ganga Singh was the registered owner of a property described as Geran No 45832, Lot No 24727, Mukim Stapak, Daerah Kuala Lumpur (property). He died on 27 January 1996 leaving his spouse Pritam Kaur A/P Lashman Singh and his children namely the Appellant and the two Respondents and two other children. The Appellant contended that his mother was entitled to one-third (1/3) share and the Appellant and the Respondents were entitled to two- thirds (2/3) shares in the property. Their mother Pritam Kaur died on 26 March 1999.

[2] In 2015 the Appellant filed an Originating Summons (OS) (Encl 1) pursuant to the Probate and Administration Act 1959 that Letters of Administration to the Estate of Pritam Kaur A/P Lashman Singh (deceased) be granted to the Appellant as the lawful son and heir of the deceased.

[3] By Encl 9, the 3rd and 4th Respondents in the OS (the two Respondents in this appeal) applied that they be appointed as Co-Administrators of the estate of the deceased and for consequential orders. Both Encl 1 and Encl 9 were heard together. After reading the cause papers and hearing submissions, the High Court Judge ruled that (i) there is no asset for administration as the Respondents have produced cogent and indefeasible proof that the property has been transferred and registered in the name of the 4th Respondent; (ii) the Appellant failed to discharge the burden on him that the property or any share therein belonged to the deceased; and (iii) Encl 1 is an abuse of process and a tactical manouvre to circumvent the time bar. Therefore the High Court Judge dismissed Encl 1 with costs and struck out Encl 9 as being academic.

[4] The Appellant has filed an appeal against the decision of the High Court Judge. The Respondents did not file any appeal or cross-appeal.

The Appellant's Case

[5] The Appellant submitted that the property was part of the estate of their late father and that their mother was entitled to 1/3 share and the Appellant and Respondents are jointly entitled to 2/3 shares in the property whereas the 2nd Respondent in the appeal contended that the property is registered in her name. The Appellant submitted that the 2nd Respondent did not produce any evidence as to how the property came to be registered in her name so soon after their father's death and without any administration of their late father's estate. He submitted that sans any evidence as to the circumstances that led to the registration of the property in her sole name, the estate of their mother is entitled to a share in the property.

[6] It was submitted that the estate of their late mother has a chose in action in 1/3 interest in the property and this chose in action is the property in the estate of their late mother. The Appellant submitted that he is merely applying for Letters of Administration in the estate of their late mother to be granted to him.

[7] The Appellant admitted that although there is a delay of 13 years in filing the OS, he explained it was only in early 2015 that he obtained legal advice from his solicitors in respect of the need to file the OS to administer the estate of their late mother. He said she passed away on 26 March 1999 and the 3 year period would expire on 26 March 2002. He submitted that notwithstanding the OS was filed almost 13 years later, under O 71 r 5(6) of the Rules of 2012, it merely requires the applicant to state a reason for the delay and nothing more and in the absence of a reason, his application will fail. He submitted that he has given an explanation for the delay.

[8] It was submitted that the delay does not