Mollika Begum v Mohammed Asad Miah

Mollika Begum v Mohammed Asad Miah

The 3 August 2019 document did not operate as an immediate disposition of the appellant’s beneficial interest and did not satisfy section 53(1)(c) of the Law of Property Act 1925. There was no clear evidence of a common intention constructive trust whereby the appellant relinquished her beneficial interest. The respondent’s notice was an invalid cross-appeal and relief against sanction was refused. The appellant retains her 50 per cent beneficial interest and orders 2 to 8 of the judge’s order are set aside.

Parties
Appellant/claimant: Mollika Begum; Respondent/defendant: Mohammed Asad Miah
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
23 October 2025
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Judgment on Appeal
Outcome
appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Beneficial Ownership, Constructive Trust, Resulting Trust, Disposition of Interest in Land, Common Intention, Detrimental Reliance, Accounting for Mortgage Payments, Division of Property After Separation
Property Law Trusts Law Family Law Beneficial Ownership Constructive Trust Resulting Trust Disposition of Interest in Land Common Intention +3 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 6 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 8
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mollika Begum

Appellant/claimant

Mohammed Asad Miah

Respondent/defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Judgment on Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appellant relinquished her beneficial interest in the property by the 3 August 2019 document
  2. 2 Whether the document satisfied section 53(1)(c) of the Law of Property Act 1925
  3. 3 Whether there was a common intention constructive trust post-separation

Ratio Decidendi

The 3 August 2019 document did not operate as an immediate disposition of the appellant’s beneficial interest and did not satisfy section 53(1)(c) of the Law of Property Act 1925. There was no clear evidence of a common intention constructive trust whereby the appellant relinquished her beneficial interest. The respondent’s notice was an invalid cross-appeal and relief against sanction was refused. The appellant retains her 50 per cent beneficial interest and orders 2 to 8 of the judge’s order are set aside.

Court Disposition

appeal allowed

Orders

  • Paragraphs 2 to 8 of the judge’s order of 3 May 2023 set aside
  • Declaration that appellant continues to hold half of the beneficial interest in the property