JUDGMENT

Quay Chew Soon J:

Introduction

[1] By way of encl 10 dated 28 May 2025, the defendants applied to strike out the plaintiff's action. The striking out application is made under O 18 r 19(1)(b) and (d) of the Rules of 2012.

[2] On 5 August 2025, I allowed the defendant's striking out application and struck out the plaintiff's suit. Here are the grounds of my decision.

Background Facts

[3] The Plaintiffs and the Defendants are, respectively, the current office holders of their registered societies. As such, all references to the plaintiffs and the defendants relate to their respective registered societies.

[4] The dispute herein is over three pieces of immoveable properties (collectively "property").

[5] The Plaintiffs were the original owners of the property. Pursuant to their EGM resolution dated 9 November 1970, the property was transferred to the defendants on 26 December 1973. Since then, the defendants have remained the registered owner of the property up to the present.

[6] This action was commenced by the plaintiffs on 8 April 2025, more than five decades since the transfer of the property.

Plaintiff's Case

[7] The Plaintiff's case is this.

[8] The Plaintiffs are a society for the Khaw clan. They were the original owner of the property.

[9] On 9 November 1970, an extraordinary general meeting (EGM) of the plaintiffs was convened. During this meeting, the plaintiffs unanimously declared and resolved that the property be merged and consolidated as the properties of the defendants. Consequently on 26 December 1973, the property was transferred to the defendants.

[10] The Plaintiffs now seek to recover the property from the defendants. They contend that:

(a) The EGM resolution was ultra vires the primary object of the plaintiffs, as stipulated in its rules and regulations. Consequently, the EGM resolution is null and void;

(b) The transfer of the property pursuant to the EGM resolution was unlawful and of no effect; and

(c) Accordingly, the defendants have no lawful right or title to the property.

Defendant's Defence

[11] The Defendant's case is this.

[12] The transfer of the property from the plaintiffs to the defendants via a memorandum of transfer (Form 14A) dated 26 December 1973 ("transfer form") occurred over five decades ago. In the transfer form:

(a) the transferors were the three trustees of the plaintiffs, and

(b) the transferees were six trustees of the defendants, comprising the three trustees of the plaintiffs and three representing Loh San Tong.

[13] The transfer of the property was based on the historical context of their society, especially the efforts made to merge the three clans of Saw, Khaw and Lean over 60 years ago. The Defendants represent the Saw Khaw Lean (Heah) Chong Shu clans.

[14] The trustees of the plaintiffs signed the transfer form following the EGM resolution. They were simply carrying out the general wishes of the plaintiffs and another society, Loh San Tong, to merge both societie's properties under the defendants. The properties were to be shared, used and enjoyed by all members of the defendants, including members of the plaintiffs and Loh San Tong.

[15] The Plaintiff's claim is barred by limitation. They expressly pleaded that the transfer of the property took place on 26 December 1973, which is more than 50 years before this suit was filed on 8 April 2025.

[16] The Plaintiffs have waived, and are estopped from alleging, any irregularities in connection with the transfer of the property. They are barred by laches and acquiescence.

The Law On Striking Out

[17] The law pertaining to striking out of a party's pleading under O 18 r 19 of the Rules of 2012 is settled. It is only in a plain and obvious case that recourse should be had to the summary process under this rule. This summary procedure should only be adopted when it can be clearly seen that a claim is on the face of it obviously unsustainable. It cannot be exercised by a minute examination of the documents and facts of the case, in order to see wh