Mohammed Arshad Alam v Pervez Alam & Anor
[2023] EWHC 1460 (Ch)
Raj Kumari Passi & Ors v Roshan Lal Hansrani
5 August 2024
[2024] EWHC 2062 (Ch)
High Court
A family fought over 11 houses they owned together, but they didn't keep good records. A judge looked at all the messy details, like who paid for what and when, and decided who actually owned each house. The brother got some houses back, and the sisters got others, and some money issues were settled. It was a very long and expensive fight!
Key Facts
- •Family dispute over ownership of eleven properties in Leicester and Uxbridge.
- •Dispute between a brother (Roshan) and his three sisters (Raj, Pawan, Ravi) after the death of their parents intestate.
- •Over £800,000 spent on litigation.
- •Lack of clear written records of property ownership and financial contributions.
- •Multiple property transfers within the family over several decades.
- •Allegations of unpaid rent, loans, and misappropriation of assets.
- •Roshan managed the rental of properties and distributed rent for years without written agreement.
- •Significant events include the death of the mother in 2005, the separation of Roshan from his wife in 2011 and subsequent transfers of properties, and the reconciliation of Roshan and his wife in 2019.
- •The 2011 transfers of 159 Nansen Road and 11 Egginton Street were central to the dispute.
Legal Principles
Presumption that equitable ownership follows legal ownership, rebuttable on the balance of probabilities.
Jones v Kernott [2011] 3 WLR 1121
Principles of common intention constructive trusts, resulting trusts, and implied trusts in determining beneficial ownership of property.
Whitlock v Moree [2017] UKPC 44; Gany v Khan [2018] UKPC 21
Estoppel by Deed: Operative provisions or recitals in a deed can create an estoppel.
Phipson on Evidence (2024) 20th Ed at para.5-09-5-16
Sham trusts: Must be shown that parties never intended to create a trust and intended to give a false impression to third parties or the court.
Pankhania v Chandegra [2013] 1 P & CR 16 (CA)
Resulting trust arising on gratuitous transfer of property or purchase of property in another's name.
Enal v Singh [2023] 2 P&CR 5 (PC)
Presumption of advancement or resulting trust in cases of unequal contributions to property purchase.
Enal v Singh [2023] 2 P&CR 5 (PC)
Principles governing joint bank accounts, including express declarations and presumed resulting trusts.
Lewin on Trusts (2024) 20th Ed at para.10-095, Whitlock v Moree [2017] UKPC 44
Equitable accounting under TLATA 1996 s.15, considering intentions, purposes, welfare of minors, and interests of secured creditors.
Stack v Dowden [2007] 2 WLR 831 (HL)
Liability to account for rent as managing agent, fiduciary, or trustee.
Snell’s Equity (2024) 34th Ed at paras.7-003-013; Angove v Bailey [2016] 1 WLR 3179 (SC)
Equitable defences to an account: acquiescence, waiver, laches.
Snell at paras 5-011 and 30-028-030; Lewin at paras.41-121-4
Six-year limitation period for constructive and resulting trusts.
s.21(3) Limitation Act 1980; Williams v CBN [2014] 2 WLR 355 (SC)
Outcomes
Roshan is the sole beneficial owner of 159 Nansen Road.
Agreed intention at purchase, sole financial contribution, and subsequent agreement with mother.
Roshan is the sole beneficial owner of 11 Egginton Street.
Sole financial contribution and agreement with mother at purchase.
Raj and Roshan are joint beneficial owners of 45 Thurlby Road.
Express declaration of joint tenancy in equity in the transfer deed.
Raj and Pawan are joint beneficial owners of 163 Nansen Road.
Transfer deed declaring joint tenancy; Pawan's sole financial contribution at purchase.
Raj and Ravi are joint beneficial owners of 10 Sawley Street.
Transfer deed declaring joint tenancy; contributions at purchase; Roshan's arrangement of the deed.
Raj and Roshan are joint beneficial owners of 76 Romway Road.
Roshan's financial contribution; transfer to Ravi and then Raj; agreement between parties.
Roshan is not liable to account for rent before November 2019.
Acquiescence by Claimants; six-year limitation period; set-off against loans owed.
Ravi owes Roshan £40,000; Raj owes Roshan £40,000.
Findings of fact regarding loans; failure to repay.
Roshan has not wrongfully retained any gold or jewellery.
Insufficient evidence to support claims.