GHANTIMATHY A/P KANNAPIRAN v ANNAMMAH A/P PONNUSAMY

Case Significance

Confirms that a power of attorney not expressed to be irrevocable and unsupported by valuable consideration abates on the donor's death under the Powers of Attorney Act 1949, and that equity will not perfect an inter vivos gift of land where no transfer was executed under the National Land Code.

This High Court decision, determined on questions of law under Order 14A of the Rules of Court 2012, concerns whether a power of attorney survived the death of its donor and whether an incomplete inter vivos gift of land could be perfected. The property, held under a Selangor grant, had belonged to a man who died intestate. By a power of attorney he had appointed two of his relatives, who became the plaintiff and the defendant in the action, as his attorneys to manage the property, and by the same instrument had purported to gift the property to them in equal shares out of love and affection. A dispute arose when the defendant sought instead to take out letters of administration and distribute the property as part of the intestate estate. The authenticity and formal validity of the power of attorney were not in dispute, and it had been registered, but it was not expressed to be irrevocable. Faced with objections to a hybrid trial and questioning the relevance of the intended oral evidence, the court exercised its power under Order 14A to determine the matter on points of law without a full trial. It held that the power of attorney did not survive the donor's death: under the Powers of Attorney Act 1949 a power of attorney remains valid only until it is revoked, renounced, or the donor dies, and, not being irrevocable and not supported by valuable consideration, love and affection not amounting to valuable consideration under section 26(a) of the Contracts Act 1950, it abated on death. On the gift, the court held that the purported gift was imperfect because the donor had never executed the transfer forms required under the National Land Code, conveyance being essential to perfect a gift of land under the Torrens system, and that the principle in Strong v Bird could not apply to perfect it. Answering the questions in the negative, it dismissed the claim with costs. The judgment is a clear illustration of the abatement of a power of attorney on death and the refusal of equity to perfect an imperfect gift of land.