( An elderly Malay woman’s nephew who settled all her incidents received a deed of present of Singapore’s landed real estate from his aunt. A kind-hearted lawyer gave independent advice to the donor before accomplishing the action. However, he did not realized that the present composed all of her property. She had not been told that she could have more wisely and equally productively where it can be settled by granting the property as he wish. The assumption that arose was not disproved as the held of present should be set on one side. )
( The court will put the present on only one side when the donor and donee relationship lifts assumption that donor had affected by the donor. This can be avoided if the court justified that the outcome of free exercise is what donor wanted which is donor’s spontaneous act in situation of letting him to exercise an individualistic will. If the fact above showed a proof of it should be regarded purely because individual legal advice was not received by the donor. Besides, the assumption might have denied by the receipt of individual legal advice even though it is not acted. However, understanding of all relevant situations must be given to have the impact. Competent and honest adviser was needed in acting merely upon donor’s interest.)