25 September 2018

Trust: Singh v. Singh

Common practice within the Sikh community of making cash loans with no written record required Gary Singh to produce a detailed accounting trail to prove his part ownership of a Tauranga house that sister Jaspal and her husband claimed was theirs alone.
A Pooles Road property in Greerton was purchased for $350,000 in April 2007: $100,00 cash and a $250,000 bank loan.  Harvinder Singh and Jaspal Kaur were registered as owners.  They claim the property is theirs.  Relatives, Gurminder (Gary) Singh and Rupinder Kaur, claim they are part owners with a one-half share.  Justice Courtney was left to sort out who owned Pooles Road.
Justice Courtney ruled Gary’s evidence was consistent with his claim to a half share.  There was evidence his $50,000 cash contribution came from savings, a loan from a friend and repayment of a loan made by him.  Witnesses corroborated details of the loans.  Deposits in the bank account of Harvinder and Jaspal in the days after instalments of Gary’s $50,000 were said to have been handed over matched his evidence.  Gary said he left Harvinder to finalise the purchase as Harvinder was older and senior to him in Sikh culture.  There was also evidence from the accountant employed by Gary’s auto mechanic business of regular payments made towards the ASB mortgage raised to purchase Pooles Road. These payments were recorded as personal drawings, not a business expense.  Harvinder and Jaspal hold a half share of Pooles Street on trust for Gary and Rupinder, Justice Courtney ruled.
The High Court was told Pooles Street had been rented out to a succession of tenants, including at one time an employee of Gary. Gary and Rupinder have been tenants for the last four years, paying rent.  Action taken in the Tenancy Tribunal by Harvinder and Jaspal to evict them has been on hold pending a High Court ruling on ownership of Pooles Road.  Evidence was given that there had been a falling out between the two families during 2016 in a dispute over a loan Harvinder and Jaspal made to Gary’s auto mechanic business.
Singh v. Singh – High Court (25.09.18)
18.189