Important Note: This article is for general information and educational purposes only — not legal advice. It draws on the High Court’s written grounds dated 13 August 2026, as reported by the New Straits Times and Free Malaysia Today, and on the relevant statutory framework.
For illustration only
What the sale of a family home reveals about trusts, deadlock, and the court’s power to break them
In 1978, an ophthalmologist bought a bungalow for his children. As his daughters were minors at the time, he registered the property solely in his son’s name. His intention was to benefit all three equally.
Forty-eight years later, following more than fifteen years of litigation, the High Court ordered the bungalow sold after finding that the siblings’ relationship had broken down irretrievably.
The case shows what can happen when a property is held on trust but the beneficiaries cannot agree. It also demonstrates the court’s power to break that deadlock when no one else can.
What Happened
The bungalow, which sits on Lorong Raja Uda 1, off Jalan Raja Muda Abdul Aziz in Kuala Lumpur, is registered in Abdul Aziz’s name. His two sisters, Jelinar and Shamsinar, are the other beneficiaries. The property has remained in the family for decades.
Abdul Aziz moved out of the place in 1990. He has not returned to the property since 2007. Jelinar on the other hand, has lived there exclusively for roughly a quarter of a century, without paying rent to either sibling.
By the time the matter reached the High Court, the siblings had been litigating across civil suits, Syariah court proceedings, and interlocutory applications. In an affidavit, Jelinar acknowledged that Abdul Aziz and Shamsinar had severed ties with her.
In June 2024, Abdul Aziz offered to sell his one-third share to his sisters for RM4.356 million, based on a valuation of about RM13.07 million. Shamsinar also offered her share. Jelinar did not respond to either offer.
Abdul Aziz was 70, Jelinar 65, and Shamsinar 59.
The Trust
The court’s finding turned on a distinction that is fundamental to trust law.
Where property is registered in one person’s name but bought for the benefit of others, equity may recognise a trust. The registered proprietor then holds the property for those beneficiaries, and not for himself alone. Legal title and beneficial ownership need not rest in the same hands.
Abdul Aziz was the registered owner, but he held only one-third of the property beneficially for himself. He held the remaining two-thirds on trust for his sisters, Jelinar and Shamsinar, in equal shares. His position was therefore dual: he was a beneficiary to the extent of his own third, and a trustee for the other two-thirds. It was that dual position that Jelinar later sought to turn against him.
The Bare Trustee Argument
Jelinar argued that Abdul Aziz, as a bare trustee, had no power to sell the property.
A bare trustee holds property for another person absolutely, with no active duties beyond transferring it when called upon. Such a trustee has no independent power of sale. That, Jelinar submitted, meant her brother could not sell.
The judge rejected the argument.
A bare trustee’s lack of a power of sale is not an obstacle to the court’s jurisdiction. It is the condition that gives rise to it. Section 59 of the Trustees Act 1949 applies precisely where a transaction is expedient but cannot be carried out because the trustees have no power to do it. The court may then confer the necessary power.
As Justice Arziah put it: “The limited powers of a bare trustee are the very premise upon which Section 59 of the Trustees Act 1949 operates.”
Section 59(4) also settles who may invoke the court’s power. An application may be made by the trustees, or by any of them, or by any person beneficially interested under the trust.
The court drew its powers from the Trustees Act 1949, the Courts of Judicature Act 1964, and the Rules of Court 2012.
The Orders
The court ordered the bungalow to be sold within twelve months, at the best available offer, provided it was not less than 90 per cent of its market value based on a fresh valuation.
Jelinar was ordered to vacate within sixty days. The net proceeds, after sale expenses, are to be divided equally among the three siblings. Each will receive one-third.
The judge rejected the objection that the sale would deprive Jelinar of her home. Her entitlement would survive it. She would receive the value of her one-third share from the proceeds, and was free to purchase her siblings’ interests if she wished to keep the bungalow.
The judge also noted that Shamsinar needed her share for medical expenses and to buy another property.
Any rental claim falling within the applicable limitation period may still be pursued at an assessment or inquiry. That point was left open by the court.
Jelinar has filed an appeal to the Court of Appeal. The orders are therefore not yet final.
The Risk of Delay
The judge gave a practical reason for resolving the deadlock rather than letting it continue.
If the dispute outlived any of them, the property would pass to their own heirs, and a three-way dispute could become a dispute among a larger group. The judge observed that this could raise complications under faraid, the Islamic law of inheritance.
Leaving the matter unresolved, she said, would result in a “continuing injustice” to Abdul Aziz, who remained a one-third owner and trustee with no practical means of realising his interest.
The order was therefore not only about breaking a deadlock. It was about breaking it while the three siblings were still alive to comply with the order and receive their shares.
Practical Takeaways
For families buying property for more than one person
- Put the arrangement in writing. The bungalow was bought for the equal benefit of three children, but registered in one name. Where that happens, the others’ interest depends on what was intended. A declaration of trust would not have prevented every disagreement, but it would have removed one source of uncertainty.
- Understand what registration in one name means. Registering property in one person’s name does not necessarily make that person the sole owner. If others contributed to the purchase or were intended to benefit, they may have a beneficial interest. That protects them — but it also means the registered proprietor cannot deal with the property freely.
- Consider who will hold the legal title, and why. Here, the son held legal title because his sisters were minors. That was sensible at the time. But it meant he could not sell without their agreement, and agreement was something the siblings could not reach.
For co-owners in a similar deadlock
- The court can order a sale. Where co-owners cannot agree and the property cannot practically be divided, the court has statutory power to order a sale and divide the proceeds. That is what happened here.
- A beneficiary who occupies the property may owe rent. Jelinar lived in the bungalow for roughly a quarter of a century without paying rent to either sibling. The judge left open the possibility of a rental claim, subject to the applicable limitation period. Occupation by one co-owner is not automatically free.
- Do not wait. The judge’s concern about faraid was practical. As co-owners age, their shares pass to their own heirs, and a three-way dispute can become a dispute among a much larger group. Resolving matters within the current generation is easier for everyone.
A Closing Thought
In 1978 a father bought a property with the intention of benefitting his three children equally. However, because his daughters were minors at the time, he put the bungalow in his son’s name.
Nearly five decades later, the bungalow will be sold because the siblings who were meant to share it could no longer agree. The law did what it could. It broke the deadlock, ordered the sale, and preserved each beneficiary’s share. Section 59 exists for exactly this situation: where a trustee lacks a power the beneficiaries need, the court can supply it.
What the law cannot do is undo the years of litigation. The property will be divided equally. The equality the father intended will be achieved, though through a court order rather than by agreement.