Chettiar v Chettiar
| Jurisdiction | UK Non-devolved |
| Court | Privy Council |
| Judgment Date | 1962 |
| Year | 1962 |
| Date | 1962 |
Contract - Illegality - Deceit on public administration - Sale of land - Fictitious consideration - Fraudulent purpose - Avoidance by vendor of public administration's rubber production control regulations - Ex turpi causa non oritur actio - Suit to recover land not maintainable. - Malaya - Contract - Illegality - Sale of rubber land in fraud of rubber production regulations - Action to recover land dismissed.
The respondent, who owned 139 acres of land cultivated with rubber in Malaya, in order to avoid the Rubber Regulations of 1934, under which the permissible production of holdings of rubber land of more than 100 acres was assessed by an assessment committee whereas that of less than 100 acres was assessed by the local district officer, transferred 40 acres of the land to his son, the appellant, for a purported consideration which was not in fact paid. The transfer was duly registered and a certificate of title issued to the son. Thereafter the father, having agreed to sell the 40 acres to a third party, asked his son to execute a power of attorney so as to enable him to transfer the land to the prospective purchaser. The son having refused to do so, the father brought the present proceedings claiming that the son was a trustee of the 40 acres holding them on trust for him:—
Held, that the father was not entitled to a retransfer of the land from the son. He had of necessity to disclose in the proceedings that he had practised a deceit on the public administration (of which act the courts were bound to take notice even though the son had not pleaded it (Scott v. Brown, Doering, McNab & Co. [
APPEAL (No. 60 of 1960) from a judgment and order of the Court of Appeal of the Federation of Malaya (Thomson C.J., Rigby and Ong JJ.) (April 23, 1959) dismissing the present appellant's appeal from a judgment and order of the High Court of the Federation of Malaya (Smith J.) (July 1, 1958) upholding the claim of the present respondent for a declaration that the appellant, his son, held certain rubber land in trust for the respondent and for an order that the appellant execute a valid and registrable transfer of the land to the respondent.
The following facts are taken from the judgment of the Judicial Committee: This was an action brought by a father against his son. It concerned a piece of land in the Mukim of Si Rusa in the State of Negri Sembilan. It was 40 acres 2 roods and 30 poles in extent: and it was cultivated with rubber. The land was registered in the name of the son but the father claimed that the son held it as trustee for him. It is hereinafter called the “40 acres.”
The father bought those 40 acres as long ago as 1934. He bought them at a public auction for $8,081.00. But he already owned 99 acres of rubber land. So that if his two holdings were added together his total holding would be 139 acres. That was undesirable from his point of view because of the Rubber Regulations (No. 17 of 1934). Those regulations were passed so as to control the production of rubber. They drew a distinction between holdings of less than 100 acres and holdings of more than 100 acres. If a man held more than 100 acres, the permissible production was assessed by an Assessment Committee. If he held less than 100 acres, it was assessed by the local District Officer. In order to avoid those regulations, the father decided...
Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI
Get Started for FreeStart Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial
-
Tinsley v Milligan
...in In re Emery's Investments Trusts [1959] Ch. 410. But in Euro-Diam v. BathurstGascoiqne v. Gascoiqne [1918] 1 K.B. 223 and Chettiar v. Chettiar [1962] A.C. 294. 2 The facts 3First, the material facts. The house in question is 141 Thomas Street, Abertridwr, Mid-Glamorgan. It is registered ......
-
Shi Fang v Koh Pee Huat
...in any way. Wright`s case 23 CLR 185, supported by the observations of the Privy Council in Palaniappa Chettiar v Arunasalam Chettiar[1962] AC 294, is clear authority for its application and no decision to the contrary has been cited. ... In a property transfer case the exception applies if......
-
Chua Cheow Tien v Chua Geok Eng and Another
...for him: at [39]. Chua Kah Wee v Chua Geok Eng [1968-1970] SLR (R) 152 (refd) Palaniappa Chettiar v Arunasalam Chettiar [1962] MLJ 143; [1962] AC 294; [1962] 1 All ER 494 (distd) Scawin v Scawin (1841) 1 Y & CCC 65; 62 ER 792 (refd) Shepherd v Cartwright [1955] AC 431 (folld) Warren v Gurne......
-
Chua Kah Wee and Others v Chua Geok Eng
... ... 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 ... ...
-
VITIATING FACTORS IN CONTRACT LAW — THE INTERACTION OF THEORY AND PRACTICE
...‘Unruly Horse’ has Bolted: Tinsley v Milligan”(1994) 57 MLR 441 at 446. 428 See eg, ARPL Palaniappa Chettiar v PLAR Arunasalam Chettiar[1962] AC 294; Gascoigne v Gascoigne[1918] 1 KB 233; In re Emery’s Investments Trusts, Emery v Emery[1959] 1 Ch 410; McEvoy v Belfast Banking Company Limite......
-
Preliminary Sections
...Williams Collier (1853) 1 EL. & BL. 630; 93 Rev. Rep. 317 8 Charles Osenton & Co. v. Johnston 1942 A.G. 130. 41 Chettiar v. Chettiar (1962) 1 All E.R. 494. 220 Chief Dada, the Lojaoke v. Chief Shittu Ogunremi (1967) N.M.L.R. 181. . 202 CASES REFERRED TO IN 1968 Chowdhavy and Another v. Gill......
-
Lifetime Wealth Transfers and the Equitable Presumptions of Resulting Trust and Gift
...a strong one and must not be frittered away by nice refinements.”); Fowkes v. Pascoe [1875] 10 Ch App. 343 at 352 (Eng.); Chettiar v. Chettiar [1962] AC 294 at 302 (appeal taken from Malaya) (stating that the plaintiff “must prove the trust clearly and distinctly”). 92 . Charles Marshall Pt......
-
RESULTING TRUSTS IN SINGAPORE
...female claimants and fails to respond adequately to disputes over the shared home on cohabitation breakdown.” 142 See Chettiar v Chettiar [1962] AC 294, where the Privy Council held that a father who transferred his land to his son for an illegal purpose (that is, to evade certain restricti......
