Trusts require certainty of intention, subject matter, and beneficiary; without these, a claim for trust fails.

Hayatul Akmal Abdul Aziz J:

(Enclosure/L.1)

Introduction

[1] In a nutshell, the parties are siblings:

(1) The plaintiff (youngest brother of the defendant) is the registered owner of a piece of land, bearing the address Geran 35683, Lot 123, s 99, Kuala Lumpur (Lot 123), with a bungalow built on it.

(2) The present case is centred on the parties' competing claims for the said Lot 123.

1.1 In the present suit against the defendant, the plaintiff claims that:

(1) The parties are registered proprietors (equal undivided share) of another property (family asset), a semi-detached house located at No 18, Lorong Jugra, Jalan Klang Lama, 58100 Kuala Lumpur (the semi-detached house: Lot 88) that at all material times were under the care, control, maintenance, and possession of the defendant.

(2) As the sole registered proprietor of Lot 123, the plaintiff authorises the defendant to deal with Lot 123 and to let it out with the rental collected to be applied as follows:

(a) RM 2,000.00 to the plaintiff.

(b) RM 2,000.00 to the defendant.

(c) The balance to be paid to their mother, who died on 25 January 2020.

(3) Lot 123 was let out to a company in December 2018 for RM10,000.00 per month with rental and utility deposits of RM30,000.00

(4) The defendant defaulted in remitting the financial arrangement to the plaintiff as agreed from May 2020:

(a) Leading to the issuance of a written notice to the defendant that the plaintiff would assume all control of Lot 123.

(b) The defendant was instructed to cease collecting any rentals from the tenant and to surrender all documents, including the issue document of title, to the plaintiff, but the defendant refused.

(c) He was also asked to pay the accumulated rental payments on Lot 123 due to the plaintiff, amounting to RM58,000.00 but was refused by the defendant.

(d) The defendant refuses to surrender the accumulated rental payments and the RM30,000.00 deposits on the rental as demanded.

1.2 In the circumstances, the plaintiff sued the defendant for:

The payment of the RM88,000.00 with interest.

(1) An order for specific performance to compel the defendant to return all documentation, including the issue document of title (IDT) for Lot 123, and for the surrender of the impugned tenancy agreement.

(2) A declaration that the plaintiff is entitled to receive the entire rental 65 of the impugned property and an order prohibiting the defendant from having any dealings with it from September 2020.

[2] The defendant denies the plaintiff's claim:

2.1 In his defence and counterclaim, the defendant argued that the plaintiff allegedly holds ½ undivided shares in Lot 123 on trust for him, and the plaintiff needed to transfer that ½ share to him:

(1) His version of the financial arrangement for the rental of Lot 123:

(a) RM2,000.00 to the plaintiff.

(b) RM2,000.00 to the defendant.

(c) RM2,000.00 to their mother.

(d) The balance rental to be used for the upkeep of the semi-detached house occupied by the family, including the plaintiff.

(2) He claimed that RM34,485.85 of the collected rental was used for hospital expenses of their late mother and her funeral expenses, with a balance of RM7,242.93 that still needed to be collected from the plaintiff.

2.2 The defendant counterclaimed against the plaintiff, as follows:

(1) An order for specific performance to compel the plaintiff to transfer and register the defendant's ^ undivided share in the impugned Lot 123, with the parties to share the expenses incurred jointly.

(2) The defendant is allowed to retain the deposits for the tenancy and is responsible for returning them to the tenant of Lot 123 once the tenancy expires.

(3) He is allowed to retain in his possession all documents, including issue documents of title for all properties, and to care for and manage the upkeep