1 The plaintiffs in this case claim as trustees of the property known as Lot 69 TS XXIV Singapore (hereinafter called `the Rochalie Drive property`) against the defendant as co-trustee of the Rochalie Drive property and personally for:

2 In the statement of claim it is pleaded that on 26 August 1953 Chua Cheow Tien, the father of the parties to these proceedings, conveyed the Rochalie Drive property to his four eldest children namely, the first and second plaintiffs, Chua Poh Keow (since deceased) and the defendant as tenants in common in equal shares on the express trust and understanding that the said four children would hold the property on trust for their father for life with remainder to the ten children of the said Chua Cheow Tien by his first wife.

3 In her defence the defendant admits that Chua Cheow Tien conveyed the Rochalie Drive property to the plaintiffs and to her as tenants in common in equal shares. She, however, denies that the said conveyance was on any trust, express or otherwise or on any understanding, either as alleged in the statement of claim or at all. She pleads that the said conveyance was for a consideration of $53,000 and that she paid to Chua Cheow Tien one-fourth of the said sum namely $13,250. The defendant counterclaims for a declaration that she is beneficially entitled to one undivided one-fourth share in the Rochalie Drive property free from encumbrances and free from any trust either express or otherwise.

4 Chua Cheow Tien`s evidence was shortly this. He has nine daughter and one son by his first wife Yap Kim Neo, who died in 1948. The first and second plaintiffs, Chua Poh Keow and the defendant are four of his daughters by his first wife. In 1948 he bought the Rochalie Drive property for $53,000. On 11 June 1953 he held a memorial ceremony for his late mother at his house. All the nine daughters by his first wife were present. He told his nine daughters of his desire to give away the Rochalie Drive property to the ten children by his first wife. It is best that I set out in full what he said to his daughters:

5 On 26 August 1953 he conveyed the Rochalie Drive property to his four daughters as tenants in common. The consideration stated in the conveyance was $53,000 but in fact he did not receive any money. The stamp fees and the solicitors` fees for the conveyance were paid by him. He kept the title deeds and collected the rents from the property and he paid the assessment. He gave his daughters money to pay the income tax due on the property. At first he gave $400 cash per annum to the defendant`s husband to pay the income tax but later he got his daughter Chua Kah Wee to make out cheques in favour of the defendant. Chua Poh Keow died in 1957 and letters of administration were granted to her husband Chia Kian Pang, the third plaintiff. In 1959 Tian Hup & Co Ltd of which he was (and still is) a director and principal shareholder entered into a contract with the Commander-in-Chief. Far East Land Forces, Singapore, and the United Chinese Bank Ltd guaranteed the due fulfilment and performance by Tian Hup & Co Ltd of all the terms and conditions of the contract between Tian Hup & Co Ltd and the Commander-in-Chief and the payment for all losses and damages. On 21 October 1959 the plaintiffs and the defendant at his request mortgaged the Rochalie Drive property to the United Chinese Bank Ltd to keep the bank indemnified against all actions, proceedings, liability, claims, damages, costs and expenses in relation to or arising out of the guarantee which the bank had signed. In 1960 Tian Hup & Co Ltd entered into a similar contract with the Commander-in-Chief, Far East Land Forces, Singapore, and the United Chinese Bank Ltd gave a similar guarantee. On 30 September 1960 the plaintiffs and the defendant at his request again mortgaged the Rochalie Drive property to the United Chinese Bank Ltd for a similar purpose. In 1963 he negotiated to sell the Rochalie Drive property to the Singapore Trading Co Ltd for $300,000. He spoke to his daughters and promised to pay each of his ten children by his first wife $10,000 out of the proceeds of sale. The first, second and third plaintiffs agreed to the sale and signed the agreement of sale but the defendant refused to sign. On 13 September 1963 on his instructions his solicitors wrote to the defendant stating that the Rochalie Drive property was held by the defendant on trust for her father and requesting her to attend at the solicitors` office to sign the agreement of sale but by letter of 20 September 1963 signed by the defendant she denied the allegations contained in the letter which was sent to her. On 25 March 1964 his solicitors again wrote to the defendant stating that she held the property on trust for her father and requesting her to confirm that the property was held on trust so that the sale of the property could be proceeded with. By letter of 8 April 1964 the defendant denied that the property was held by her on trust for her father. On 11 January 1965 the defendant`s solicitors wrote to his solicitors saying that they had gone into the matter fully and had advised the defendant that she was entitled to one-fourth share of the Rochalie Drive property.

6 The first and second plaintiffs, and Chua Ah Lian and Chua Ah Sye, two other daughters of Chua Cheow Tien by his first wife, gave evidence, and they all supported the evidence of their father. The first plaintiff, Chua Kah Wee, further said that the defendant asked her father for $400 each year to pay the income tax due on the Rochalie Drive property. At first cash was given to the defendant but fearing that the defendant would deny having received the money so her father asked her to issue cheques to the defendant. (Five cheques were produced in court, each for $400 and signed by her in Chinese and made out in favour of the defendant and were issued in November 1959, May 1960, April 1961, March 1962 and March 1963.) Her father reimbursed her later.

7 Another witness gave evidence about these cheques. He was Teo Yeow Hong, the husband of the second plaintiff. His evidence was this. He was a director of Guan Choon & Co Ltd and a shareholder of Lian Hup Tobacco Co Ltd. The defendant`s husband brought to him the cheque of November 1959. It had already been endorsed by `Chua Gek Eng`. The defendants husband asked him to exchange the cheque for cash. He telephoned Lian Hup Tobacco Co Ltd and asked them to exchange the cheque for cash and told the defendant`s husband to go there. The cheques of May 1960, April 1961, March 1962 and March 1963 were brought to him by the defendant`s husband. The cheques had been endorsed by `Chua Gek Eng`. The defendant`s husband asked him to exchange the cheques for cash. He gave the defendant`s husband $400 on each occasion and paid the cheque into the bank account of Guan Choon & Co Ltd.

8 The defendant`s evidence was shortly this. In 1953 she lived at 239A New Bridge Road, Singapore, which was on the first floor. The ground floor of the building, No 239, was occupied by See Huat & Co in which her husband was a partner with three others. In 1953 her father came to see her and told her that he would sell the Rochalie Drive property at cost and that it would be in her interest to buy a quarter share for $13,250. She told her father that she did not have the money to buy whereupon he offered to lend her the money and add that she could repay by instalments out of her share of the rents from the property. She was very happy and gratefully accepted his offer. On 26 August 1953 the conveyance was signed and her father paid all the fees as she had no money. That very evening her father came to her house and brought with him a document in English which was explained to her by her husband, Tan Choo Keng. The document (exh D1) reads as follows:

9 She told her father that in case she could not repay in five years he should give her more time to pay. He agreed. Her father said that two witnesses were required and her husband went downstairs to fetch two of his partners - Seow Tiong Chan and Goh Chin Beng. The document exh D1 was then signed by her and her father and Seow Tiong Chan and Goh Chin Beng signed as witnesses. Her father then kept the document exh Dl. Her father handed her the title deeds to the property and she kept them in a deposit box at a bank. She asked her husband to collect the rents of the Rochalie Drive property and hand them to her father to pay towards the loan and her husband kept the accounts. At that time her husband was running a business of rent collecting and he was collecting the rents of her father`s properties for four years. After that her father collected the rent of the Rochalie Drive property. In due course her share of the rents was sufficient to pay off the $13,250 loan. After the loan was repaid her father handed the document exh D1 to her husband who kept it. The property tax of the Rochalie Drive property was paid by her father out of the rents collected but the income tax due on the property was paid by her husband. In 1959 at the request of her father she took out the title deeds of the Rochalie Drive property and mortgaged the property to the United Chinese Bank Ltd. Later when the property was reconveyed to her, the title deeds were not returned to her. In 1960 at the request of her father the Rochalie Drive property was again mortgaged to the bank. Before the contract with the Commander-in-Chief, Far East Land Forces, had expired her father wanted to sell the Rochalie Drive property for $300,000 but she would not agree as she wanted more than $75,000 for her quarter share. She denied that she was present at her father`s house on 11 June 1953. She denied that she received $400 per year from her father to pay the income tax. She said that her father said that he would give her $400 per ann um but he never did. She admitted receiving the cheque for $400 issued in November 1959, from her sister Chua Kah Wee and that she endorsed her name at the back of the cheque in English but that was a repayment by Chua Kah Wee of a loan which Chua Kah Wee took from her. She denied she received the other cheques from Chua Kah Wee and she said that the signature `Chua Gek Eng` in English on the back of those cheques were not hers.

10 The defendant called Seow Tiong Chan to give evidence. Seow Tiong Chan said in evidence that he signed exh D1 as a witness together with Goh Chin Beng at the first floor of No 239 New Bridge Road. There were several persons present but he could not remember who they were and he did not remember if he saw anyone signing it before he signed. He said he knew the defendant but he could not remember if she was present. Goh Chin Beng died in September 1967.

11 Tan Choo Keng, the defendant`s husband gave evidence to this effect. In 1952 he was a partner in See Huat & Co and also a partner in Aljunied, Alkaff, Tan & Co which carried on business of rent collecting until 1954. From August 1951 to January 1958, he acted as secretary of Tian Hup & Co Ltd and during that period he helped his father-in-law, Chua Cheow Tien, in the latter`s personal affairs. In 1953 his father-in-law wanted to sell the Rochalie Drive property to his wife and to three other daughters. His wife told her father that she had no money but the father said that he would allow her to owe him first and she could collect the rent and repay him at a later stage. On 26 August 1953 his father-in-law signed the conveyance and he paid part of the fees. Sometime in August 1953 his father-in-law came to the house with the document exh D1. His father-in-law told him to get two witnesses and he went down to see See Huat & Co and got two of his partners to come upstairs. He read over the document exh D1 to them and his father-in-law, his wife and the two witnesses signed it. The title deeds to the property were handed over to his wife by his father-in-law and she kept them in a bank. Exhibit D1 was kept by his father-in-law. The rents of the Rochalie Drive property were at first collected by Aljunied, Alkaff, Tan & Co for 16 months when the company was wound up and after that he himself started to collect the rents. The rents were eventually paid over to his father-in-law. The rent was at first $650 per month and later increased to $675. His wife`s share was $107.25 per month and later $108. He made a note of the rents collected every month in a note book (which was produced, exh D4). According to his note book the balance due by his wife to his father-in-law on 31 June 1963 was $545, which he paid to his father-in-law in cash in July 1963 and his father-in-law handed to him the document exh D1. He paid the income tax due on his wife`s quarter share in the Rochalie Drive property from 1953 up to 1966. His father-in-law paid the property tax due on the Rochalie Drive property out of the rents. At the request of his father-in-law he typed out and got his wife`s three sisters to sign receipts that they had received their shares of the rents for each year from 1953 to 1957 (fourteen receipts were produced in court, exhs D6 to D6N, all signed in English.) He denied the allegations of Teo Yeow Hong about the cheques.

12 Chua Cheow Tien in his evidence admitted that the signature on exh D1 was his but he said that it was not signed by him as an agreement with his daughter, the defendant. It was intended to be used for a letter to be written to a Government department in connection with the proposed construction of a cinema. His story of how he came to sign exh D1 was this. In 1956 he intended to build a cinema on one of his properties. Plans were prepared to be submitted to the proper authorities. Tan Choo Keng, his son-in-law, was then employed by him. On 3 April 1956 Tan Choo Keng said that it would be necessary to write four letters to the various Government departments and gave him eight pieces of blank paper and asked him to sign them in blank and he did go. Four were for letters and four for copies of the letters. Tan Choo Keng took them away to prepare the letters. Tan Choo Keng also asked for $650 cash on the same day and said that it was the fees to be paid to the authorities. He gave Tan Choo Keng the $650 exh D1 was one of the blank papers which he signed. His later found out that the $650 was not paid to the authorities and on 8 July 1964 he wrote a letter (exh P3) through his solicitors, to Tan Choo Keng demanding the return of the $650 and requesting the return of the eight blank papers which he had signed and handed to Tan Choo Keng for use in connection with the building of the cinema and alternatively if the papers had been used he would like to know for what purpose they had been so used. By letter dated 15 July 1964 (exh P4), Tan Choo Keng denied the allegation contained in the letter of 8 July.

13 Tan Choo Keng in evidence denied the allegation of Chua Cheow Tien that he received eight blank sheets of paper which had been signed by Chua Cheow Tien on 3 April 1956. He said that the story of Chua Cheow Tien was untrue. In the first place the cinema plan was prepared and submitted in 1952 and was disapproved in May 1952. Thereafter his father-in-law and he went to Allen & Gledhill and the solicitors corresponded with the authorities. Secondly, on 13 December 1964 he sent a copy of exh D1 to the Assistant Comptroller of Income Tax. However, the Assistant Comptroller of Income Tax was not asked to produce the copy of the agreement which was sent to him by Tan Choo Keng. Chua Cheow Tien was not cross-examined on his statement that the cinema plan was submitted to the authorities in 1956 and on his statement that the blank sheets of paper were given to Tan Choo Keng on 3 April 1956. Could Chua Cheow Tien have made a mistake when he said the cinema plans were prepared in 1956?

14 Chua Kah Wee and Chua Kah Bin both said in evidence that the receipts produced by Tan Choo Keng (exhs D6A to D6N) were not signed by them. Chua Kah Wee said that she could sign her name in English if she wanted to. (She was asked to sign her name in English which she did.) Chua Kah Bin said that she did not know how to sign in English but she could write her name in English if she wanted to. (She was asked to copy the writing `Chua Kah Bin` and she did.)

15 So much for the evidence.

16 The first question for consideration is whether or not the defendant`s story that she bought a quarter share in the Rochalie Drive property and paid for it is true. If her story is true that will dispose of the whole of this case.

17 Now, the impression I gained from seeing and hearing the defendant and her husband giving evidence was that they were not telling the truth. On the other hand, Chua Cheow Tien and the plaintiffs struck me in the witness box as witnesses of truth.

18 It seems to me that the defendant`s story is highly improbable. Why should her father ask her to buy a quarter share in the property when the other three daughters were not asked to buy? If her father had wanted her to sign a document of loan why was it not signed at PY Tan`s office on the day when her father signed the conveyance and she was present? Why should her father bring the document later that evening to her house when there might be difficulty in getting two witnesses? Why should the father hand over the title deeds to her when she held only a quarter share and had not even paid for it?

19 The defendant produced the document exh D1 to substantiate her story. She called Seow Tiong Chen, one of the persons who signed as a witness, but his evidence does not help her case. Seow Tiong Chen could only say that he signed the document as a witness. Not only was he unable to remember who were the other persons who signed it but also if anyone signed it before he signed. He said that he knew the defendant but he could not remember if she was present.

20 I think Chua Cheow Tien`s story about signing the blank sheets of paper is probably true. There is no doubt that when he said that the blank sheets were signed in 1956 he made a mistake as to the year. If he did not sign the blank papers why should he ask the defendant`s husband about them on 8 July 1964 (exh P3) ? Was he laying the foundation for the story which he told the court in 1967? It seems to me that that is very improbable.

21 It seems to me that the defendant could have satisfied the court as to the authenticity of exh D1 if she had asked the Comptroller of Income Tax to produce the copy of it which was sent, according to her husband, to the comptroller on 13 December 1954. As the comptroller was not called I must presume that his evidence would be unfavourable and would not support the evidence of her husband.

22 For these reasons I have come to the conclusion that exh D1 is not an authentic document.

23 The defendant`s husband produced the note book exh D4 to substantiate his statement that the loan had been repaid. In this note book were recorded his personal account, the entries of which were in ink, and his wife`s account with her father, the entries of which were in pencil and in the other half of the note book. Having carefully examined the note book I must say that it certainly looks to me that her account has been specially written up for the purpose of this case.

24 The onus is on the defendant to establish that she bought and paid for the quarter share in the Rochalie Drive property. She has failed to discharge that onus.

25 The next question for consideration is whether the Rochalie Drive property is held on trust by the plaintiffs and the defendant for their father, Chua Cheow Tien, for life with remainder to the ten children of Chua Cheow Tien, by his first wife.

26 The evidence adduced by the plaintiffs, which I accept, clearly showed that there was a trust for the father for life with remainder to the ten children. The defendant said that there was no trust and that she was not present at the gathering in the father`s house on 11 June 1953. All her sisters, however, said was that there was a trust and that she was present at the gathering. I have no doubt that the defendant was present at this gathering and heard what the father said about the property and that she accepted the trust. It has clearly been proved that the defendant received $400 a year from her father to pay for the income tax due on this property and on another property. It was admitted by the defendant that the rents were paid over to the father. It was also admitted by the defendant that the property tax on the property was paid by the father. I find that the title deeds were held by the father. In my view the trust has clearly been established.

27 It is submitted by counsel for the defendant that the evidence disclosed a conspiracy to defraud the income tax department and the court should not assist the plaintiffs, who were parties with their father in the conspiracy, to achieve this illegal purpose and that the court should treat the conveyance to the defendant as an advancement to her. The case of Palaniappa Chettiar v Arunasalam Chettiar , [1962] MLJ 143 (PC) was cited in support of this submission. I am unable to find that the transfer by the father to the four daughters was made for a fraudulent or illegal purpose namely to defraud the income tax department as there is no evidence of it. Furthermore, I do not think that the defendant should be allowed to suggest that the transaction was entered into for a fraudulent or illegal purpose. She has not pleaded it distinctly and she has not given any evidence about it. In this case the plaintiffs had no reason to disclose any illegality and did not do so. Therein lies the distinction between Palaniappa Chettiar v Arunasalam Chettiar and the present case.

28 In the result there must be judgment for the plaintiffs with costs and the counterclaim of the defendant is dismissed with costs.

29 There will be an order in terms of prayers 1 and 2 of the plaintiffs` claim.

30 Judgment for the plaintiffs.