Singh v Singh - [2004] NSWSC 109

Reported Decision:
(2004) DFC 95-280

Supreme Court

CITATION: Singh v Singh [2004] NSWSC 109

HEARING DATE(S): 04/02/04, 05/02/04, 06/02/04

JUDGMENT DATE:
3 March 2004

JURISDICTION:
Equity Division

JUDGMENT OF: Barrett J

DECISION: Summons dismissed with costs

CATCHWORDS: TRUSTS AND TRUSTEES - resulting trust - whether money provided by father towards purchase of house by son gave rise to resulting trust in favour of father - whether voluntary transfer of Torrens system land gives rise to resulting trust in favour of transferor - FAMILY LAW AND CHILD WELFARE - domestic relationships - considerations relevant to application for leave to bring Property (Relationships) Act claim out of time

LEGISLATION CITED: Conveyancing Act 1919, s.44(1)
Property (Relationships) Act 1984, s.18

CASES CITED: Bevan v Fallshaw (1992) 15 Fam LR 686
Bhana v Bhana (2002) 10 BPR 19,545
Calverley v Green (1984) 155 CLR 242
Charles Marshall Pty Ltd v Grimsley (1956) 95 CLR 353
Hayes v Harrison [2002] ACTSC 22
House v Caffyn [1922] VLR 67
Newcastle City Council v Kern Land Pty Ltd (1997) 42 NSWLR 273
Rowland v Ellis (2001) 28 Fam LR 656
Ryan v Hopkinson (1990) 14 Fam LR 151
Wirth v Wirth (1956) 98 CLR 228

PARTIES :
Mahendra Pratap Singh - Plaintiff
Manoj Baalman Singh - First Defendant
Shareen Lata Singh - Second Defendant

FILE NUMBER(S): SC 1804/03

COUNSEL: Mr M K Rollinson - Plaintiff
Mr T J Morahan - Defendants

SOLICITORS: Ramrakha Jenkins - Plaintiff
John Spence & Associates - Defendants

IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES
EQUITY DIVISION

BARRETT J

WEDNESDAY, 3 MARCH 2004

1804/03 – MAHENDRA PRATAP SINGH v MANOJ BAALMAN SINGH & ANOR

JUDGMENT

1 Mahrenda Pratap Singh and his wife, Bijma Wati Singh, are the parents of Manoj Baalman Singh who is married to Shareen Lata Singh. Mahrenda Pratap Singh is the plaintiff. Manoj Baalman Singh and Shareen Lata Singh are the defendants. Without intending any disrespect and simply to avoid confusion, I shall refer to the parties by their first names, except in the case of Shareen Lata Singh who is called “Lata”.

2 Manoj and Lata became in 1997 the registered proprietors, as joint tenants, of a residential property at Mt Druitt held under the provisions of the Real Property Act 1900. Immediately before that, the registered proprietors had been Manoj and Mahendra as joint tenants. That property was sold in 2002. In order for the sale to be completed, it was necessary for the vendors to negotiate the withdrawal of a caveat lodged by Mahendra. The withdrawal was effected under an arrangement which saw the net proceeds of sale placed in an interest bearing account pending resolution of the claim on which Mahendra based his caveat, namely, a claim to be the owner in equity of an undivided interest in the Mt Druitt property. These proceedings are the vehicle by which that claim is to be determined.

3 Mahendra’s primary claim is a claim based upon the proposition that, at the time of the sale of…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Singh v Singh

Details

AGLC: Singh v Singh [2004] NSWSC 109
Case: [2004] NSWSC 109
Decision Date: 3 March 2004

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Singh v Singh involved the applicant, Singh, who sought to bring a claim under the Property (Relationships) Act out of time, arguing that a resulting trust had arisen in favour of her father in respect of funds he had provided towards the purchase of a house by her son. The applicant contended that her father's contributions constituted a resulting trust, and that a similar trust arose in relation to Torrens system land he had transferred to her son. The matter was heard in the Family Court of Australia.

The central legal issues before the court were whether the money provided by the father towards the purchase of the house gave rise to a resulting trust in his favour, and whether the voluntary transfer of Torrens system land from the father to the son resulted in a trust in favour of the transferor. Additionally, the court had to consider the relevant factors in deciding whether to grant leave for the applicant to bring her claim out of time.

In determining these issues, the court found that the father's contributions towards the house purchase did not create a resulting trust in his favour. The court held that the father's intention was to make a gift to his son, and there was no evidence of an intention to retain any beneficial interest in the property. As for the Torrens system land, the court found that the father's voluntary transfer did not give rise to a resulting trust in his favour, as it was a gift intended to be irrevocable. The court also considered the applicant's application for leave to bring her claim out of time and concluded that the relevant factors did not warrant granting such leave.

Consequently, the court dismissed the applicant's claims, finding no resulting trust in favour of her father in respect of the house or the land, and denying her leave to bring her claim out of time.

Orders