Re Tang Hong Yuen and Others

HCMP 1952/2013

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO 1952 OF 2013

________________________

________________________

________________________

________________________

J U D G M E N T

________________________

1.The application concerns what used to be Lot No 968 in DD 83 (“the Lot”), New Territories. The 1^st to the 5^th applicants are respectively the owners of what are now known as:

(1) The Remaining Portion of Section A of the Lot;

(2) Subsection 1 of Section A of the Lot, Subsection 1 of Section B of the Lot;

(3) Subsection 2 of Section A of the Lot;

(4) Subsection 3 of Section A of the Lot;

(5) Subsection 4 of Section A of the Lot and Remaining Portion of Section B of the Lot.

2.The above plots of land were respectively assigned to the applicants by their predecessor in 2005.

3.However tracing the root of title prior to the applicants’ immediate predecessor in title revealed that before the Lot was divided and subdivided, it was held by one Tang Kam Wan and one Tang Ching Shi (as trustee) back in May 1931.  Concern of the applicants arises out of the fact that when the Lot was subsequently conveyed, only Tang Kam Wan but not Tang Ching Shi signed on the memorial for the conveyance on sale.

4.According to the affirmations in support, the applicants had no information about Tang Ching Shi except for the description in the memorial mentioned above of her as of Lung Yeuk Tau.  Enquiries made with the applicants’ immediate predecessor in title and the villagers of Lung Yeuk Tau Village gave no clue as to the identity and whereabout of Tang Ching Shi.  No record of Tang Ching Shi was found at the Birth & Death Register Office or the Probate Registry.

5.The documents recorded that Tang Kam Wan and Tang Ching Shi (as trustee) succeeded, among others, the Lot from one Tang Kwai Iu in 1931.  However, only Tang Ching Shi signed the memorial (by making her mark).  One possible explanation is that Tang Kam Wan was then incapable of appending his signature, perhaps because he was a minor, and hence the trusteeship of Tang Ching Shi.  When it came to the next conveyance which took place in 1947, that Tang Kam Wan came to sign the conveyance is not surprising.

6.But even on the basis of the abovementioned possibility, there is still no documentary record of the vesting of the Lot by Tang Ching Shi, as trustee, in Tang Kam Wan, as the beneficiary.

7.The concern that the applicants’ interest in their respective parts of the Lot may in theory be subject to the trustee’s interest stands in the way of the applicants’ plan to develop their land.

8.So much for the speculation.  One way or the other, the applicants are justified in the circumstances in taking out the present application on ex parte basis for the removal of the trusteeship of Tang Ching Shi and the order for vesting the properties into the applicants respectively and absolutely.

9.I give an order in terms of the originating summons, as amended, with no order as to costs.

Miss Constance Leung, Solicitors of Messrs Leung Kin & Co for the 1^st to the 5^th applicants