GIRISH CHANDRA A/L HEMRAJ SHASTRI v XXXX

w-02w-475-03-2022 Court of Appeal (Mahkamah Rayuan) 28 September 2025 • W-02(W)-475-03/2022 • 45 min read
12 cases cited (0 SG, 12 foreign)

Outcome

As such, this part of the appeal is hereby dismissed, and the decision of the learned HCJ is affirmed.

Quoted verbatim from the judgment of Court of Appeal (Mahkamah Rayuan) (w-02w-475-03-2022). Read the full judgment on the official Malaysia Courts portal for the complete decision.

Catchwords

Marriage and Divorce – Division of Matrimonial Assets – Section 76, Law Reform (Marriage and Divorce) Act 1976 – Whether Setapak Shoplot and Titiwangsa House constituted matrimonial assets – Whether sale and transfer of properties were bona fide – Whether resulting trust could be invoked where companies not joined as parties – Whether High Court correctly exercised discretion under Section 76. Company Law – Separate Legal Personality – Whether Hemraj Sdn Bhd and Mahalaxmi Sdn Bhd should have been joined as parties – Effect of non-joinder – Whether transfer of matrimonial property to related company constituted mala fide disposal. Equity – Resulting Trust – Requirement of contribution and intention – Whether respondent’s indirect contribution sufficient to create beneficial interest – Whether presumption of resulting trust rebutted. Evidence – Burden of Proof – Sections 101–102 Evidence Act 1950 – Whether respondent discharged burden to prove contribution – Whether appellant proved that transfers were bona fide. Family Law – Contribution (Direct and Indirect) – Consideration of non-financial contributions – Length of marriage – Welfare of child – Discretion of court in assessing equitable division. Property – Sale and Transfer – Whether transfer to related company intended to defeat respondent’s claim – Whether mala fide established. Appellate Review – Scope of Interference – Whether appellate court should disturb findings of fact – Whether discretion exercised judicially by trial judge.

Practice Areas

Family Law Evidence Equity & Trusts

Judges (3)

Ahmad Kamal bin Md. Shahid Coram Azhahari Kamal bin Ramli Delivered S. Nantha Balan a/l E.s. Moorthy Coram

Counsel (6)

S. Rajinder & Co Firm Shahrizat Rashid & Lee Firm Dato' Seri Rajan Navaratnam Counsel Appellant Muhammad Muzammil bin Abdul Halim Counsel Appellant Rajinder Kaur a/p Sukhdev Singh Counsel Respondent Sheena Stephanie Sebastian Counsel Appellant

Parties (2)

Girish Chandra a/l Hemraj Shastri Appellant Xxxx Respondent

Case Significance

Instructive on the exercise of the section 76 discretion for the division of matrimonial assets under the Law Reform (Marriage and Divorce) Act 1976, and on treating a transfer of matrimonial property to a related company as a mala fide disposal that does not defeat a spouse's claim.

This Court of Appeal decision concerns the division of matrimonial assets on divorce under section 76 of the Law Reform (Marriage and Divorce) Act 1976, and in particular whether the disposal of a property to a related company was made in good faith. The appeal was brought by the appellant husband against the High Court's orders in a divorce proceeding, the parties, who had married in India, having each petitioned for dissolution with consequential reliefs including maintenance and the division of property. The dispute focused on two properties, a shoplot in Setapak and a house in Titiwangsa, and raised the questions whether they constituted matrimonial assets, whether their sale and transfer were bona fide, whether a resulting trust could be invoked where the related companies had not been joined as parties, and whether the transfer of matrimonial property to a related company was a mala fide disposal intended to defeat the wife's claim. The court, comprising Nantha Balan, Azhahari Kamal bin Ramli and Ahmad Kamal bin Md Shahid JJCA, addressed the exercise of the discretion under section 76, weighing direct and indirect contributions, the length of the marriage and the welfare of the child. On the Titiwangsa house, it found that the appellant had sold the property to a related company with mala fide, and that, the appellant no longer being the registered owner, it was just that the respondent wife be entitled to a 50% share, the appellant to pay her a sum equivalent to 50% of the current market value as at the date of the High Court's decision; it agreed with the High Court in this respect and dismissed that part of the appeal. On the Setapak shoplot, however, it found an appealable error in the High Court's decision and set that order aside. The appeal was accordingly allowed in part, with no order as to costs. The judgment is instructive on the section 76 discretion and on treating a transfer of matrimonial property to a related company as a mala fide disposal that does not defeat a spouse's claim.

Summary

This was a matrimonial appeal where the husband challenged the division of assets following a divorce. The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal in part regarding a shoplot transferred to a family company, but affirmed the order regarding the Titiwangsa House, finding the transfer was made in mala fide to defeat the wife's claim, and ordered 50% of the current market value to be paid to the wife.

How did the court treat the transfer of the Titiwangsa house to a related company?

The court found that the appellant husband had sold the Titiwangsa house to a related company with mala fide, and held that, notwithstanding that he was no longer the registered owner, the respondent wife was entitled to a 50% share, with the appellant to pay her a sum equivalent to 50% of the current market value as at the date of the High Court's decision.

What was the overall outcome of the appeal?

The appeal was allowed in part: the court set aside the High Court's order concerning the Setapak shoplot, finding an appealable error, but affirmed the decision on the Titiwangsa house, holding the High Court was not plainly wrong; no order as to costs was made.

Cases Cited (12)

MY (12)
[1983] 2 MLJ 320 [1994] 1 MLRH 211 [1994] 2 CLJ 390 [1994] MLJU 531 [1997] 1 CLJ 375 [1999] 3 CLJ 143 [1999] 3 MLJ 481 [2004] 2 MLRH 394 [2004] 8 CLJ 105 [2008] 4 CLJ 105 [2022] 2 CLJ 497 [2022] 2 MLJ 119

Judgment

Read the full judgment on the official Malaysia Courts portal.

Read on eJudgment

Source: eJudgment (w-02w-475-03-2022)