Pandey v Bothra: Caveat Dispute over Unpaid Property Purchase Price under Land Titles Act

In Nimisha Pandey v Divya Bothra, the General Division of the High Court of Singapore addressed an application by Ms. Pandey to maintain a caveat she had lodged against a property owned by Ms. Bothra, or alternatively, for the balance of the purchase price to be paid into court. The court, presided over by Judicial Commissioner Goh Yihan, allowed the latter, ordering that the balance sum be paid into court pending the resolution of a related claim. The case clarified the interaction and application of sections 127(1), 127(2), and 127(4) of the Land Titles Act.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

General Division of the High Court of the Republic of Singapore

1.2 Outcome

Prayer (b) of the claimant’s application allowed; an order that the Balance Sum be paid into court and held pending the resolution of OC 138 and any appeal therefrom.

1.3 Case Type

Civil

1.4 Judgment Type

Grounds of Decision

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

The High Court addressed a caveat dispute over an unpaid property purchase price, clarifying Land Titles Act sections 127(1), 127(2), and 127(4).

1.7 Decision Date

3 May 2023

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party Name	Role	Type	Outcome	Outcome Type	Counsels
Nimisha Pandey	Claimant	Individual	Application Allowed in Part	Partial	Prakash Pillai of CLASIS LLC Koh Junxiang of CLASIS LLC Ng Pi Wei of CLASIS LLC
Divya Bothra	Defendant	Individual	Application Partially Unsuccessful	Lost	Oh Kim Heoh Mimi of Ethos Law Corporation Sandra Ooi Hui Shan of Ethos Law Corporation

3. Judges

Judge Name	Title	Delivered Judgment
Goh Yihan	Judicial Commissioner	Yes

4. Counsels

Counsel Name	Organization
Prakash Pillai	CLASIS LLC
Koh Junxiang	CLASIS LLC
Ng Pi Wei	CLASIS LLC
Oh Kim Heoh Mimi	Ethos Law Corporation
Sandra Ooi Hui Shan	Ethos Law Corporation

4. Facts

The claimant was the former owner of a property.
On 14 February 2023, the claimant lodged a caveat against the Property based on an interest as an unpaid vendor.
On 23 February 2023, the defendant filed an application to cancel the Caveat.
On 3 March 2023, the claimant filed HC/OC 138/2023 to claim the balance of the purchase price.
The claimant filed the present application for the Caveat to be maintained or for the Balance Sum to be paid into court.
On or about 12 October 2015, the claimant and the defendant entered into the Agreement for the sale of the Property for $4m.
On 2 July 2016, the title to the Property was transferred to Ms Bothra without the Purchase Price being paid.

5. Formal Citations

Nimisha Pandey v Divya Bothra, Originating Application No 203 of 2023, [2023] SGHC 125

6. Timeline

Date	Event
2015-10-12	Sale and Purchase Agreement entered into
2016-03-31	Sale completion date
2016-07-02	Title to the Property was transferred to Ms Bothra
2019-03-08	Power of Attorney was executed
2022-07-08	Option to Purchase the Property was executed
2023-01-20	Defendant revoked the Power of Attorney
2023-02-14	Claimant lodged a caveat against the Property
2023-02-23	Defendant filed an application to cancel the Caveat
2023-03-03	Claimant filed HC/OC 138/2023
2023-03-30	Court hearing
2023-04-04	Judgment Date

7. Legal Issues

Whether the Caveat should be maintained
- Outcome: The court held that the Caveat should be maintained.
- Category: Substantive
- Related Cases:
  - [2017] 2 SLR 850
  - [2006] 1 SLR(R) 484
  - [2007] 2 SLR(R) 181
  - [1990] 2 SLR(R) 705
  - [2009] 2 SLR(R) 814
  - [1980] AC 331
  - [2017] SGHC 175
  - [1994] 3 SLR(R) 536
  - [1994] 2 SLR(R) 814
  - [2006] 3 SLR(R) 881
  - [1993] 1 SLR(R) 598
  - [1996] 1 SLR(R) 70
Interaction between sections 127(1), 127(2), and 127(4) of the Land Titles Act
- Outcome: The court clarified the proper interaction between ss 127(1), 127(2), and 127(4) of the LTA.
- Category: Procedural

8. Remedies Sought

Order that the Caveat be maintained
Order that the Balance Sum be paid into court

9. Cause of Actions

Claim for balance of purchase price
Application to cancel caveat

10. Practice Areas

Real Estate Law
Litigation

11. Industries

Real Estate

12. Cited Cases

Case Name	Court	Affirmed	Citation	Jurisdiction	Significance
Tan Cheng Bock v Attorney-General	Court of Appeal	Yes	[2017] 2 SLR 850	Singapore	Cited for the principle that Parliament does not legislate in vain, nor does it legislate tautologously.
JD Ltd v Comptroller of Income Tax	Court of Appeal	Yes	[2006] 1 SLR(R) 484	Singapore	Cited for the principle that the court has to interpret sections in a manner that gives significance to every word in the sections.
Ho Soo Fong and another v Standard Chartered Bank	Court of Appeal	Yes	[2007] 2 SLR(R) 181	Singapore	Cited for the meaning of “vexatious” in the context of section 127(2) of the Land Titles Act.
Goh Koon Suan v Heng Gek Kiau	Unspecified	Yes	[1990] 2 SLR(R) 705	Singapore	Cited for the definition of 'vexatiously' as wishing to annoy or not intending to lead to a serious result.
Wing Joo Loong Ginseng Hong (Singapore) Co Pte Ltd v Qinghai Xinyuan Foreign Trade Co Ltd and another and another appeal	Court of Appeal	Yes	[2009] 2 SLR(R) 814	Singapore	Cited for the principle that a pleading will not be struck out where it discloses a cause of action with some chance of success, even if the case is weak or not likely to succeed.
Eng Mee Yong and others v Letchumanan s/o Velayutham	Privy Council	Yes	[1980] AC 331	Unspecified	Cited for the two-stage test for determining whether a caveat should be maintained.
PACC Offshore Services Holdings Ltd v Kensteel Engineering Pte Ltd	High Court	Yes	[2017] SGHC 175	Singapore	Cited for the application of the Eng Mee Yong test and the critical consideration of the relative financial status of the parties.
Ow Chor Seng v Tjinta Pte Ltd (in liquidation)	High Court	Yes	[1994] 3 SLR(R) 536	Singapore	Cited as an example of a serious question to be tried, specifically whether a mistaken transfer gives rise to a constructive trust.
Sim Kwang Mui Ivy v Goh Peng Khim	High Court	Yes	[1994] 2 SLR(R) 814	Singapore	Cited for the principle that if the court is unable to decide on the merits of the claim, then the caveat will be allowed to stand while the parties go to trial over the claim.
Tan Yow Kon v Tan Swat Ping and others	High Court	Yes	[2006] 3 SLR(R) 881	Singapore	Cited for the standard to be applied in assessing the evidence furnished by the caveator is similar to that employed by the courts in deciding whether to strike out pleadings and other documents.
Alrich Development Pte Ltd v Rafiq Jumabhoy	Court of Appeal	Yes	[1993] 1 SLR(R) 598	Singapore	Cited for the principle that the court would not entertain the removal of a caveat on the ground that it was defective in form, unless the defects were substantial in the sense of being misleading.
Re Caveat No CV/21366D lodged by Lim Saw Hak and another	High Court	Yes	[1996] 1 SLR(R) 70	Singapore	Cited for the principle that an unpaid vendor's lien is capable of being the subject matter of a caveat.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
No applicable rules

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute Name	Jurisdiction
Land Titles Act 1993	Singapore
Section 127(4) of the Land Titles Act 1993	Singapore
Section 127(2) of the Land Titles Act 1993	Singapore
Section 127(1) of the Land Titles Act 1993	Singapore
Section 115(1) of the Land Titles Act	Singapore
Section 4 of the Land Titles Act	Singapore

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

Caveat
Caveatee
Caveator
Land Titles Act
Unpaid vendor
Purchase Price
Balance Sum
Power of Attorney
Vexatious
Frivolous
Good faith

15.2 Keywords

Caveat
Land Titles Act
Unpaid Vendor
Property Law
Singapore

17. Areas of Law

Area Name	Relevance Score
Caveats	90
Land Law	85
Property Law	75
Unpaid Vendor's Lien	70
Contract Law	60
Civil Procedure	50
Powers of Attorney	40
Debt Recovery	35
Estoppel	30

16. Subjects

Land Law
Caveats
Civil Procedure