Back
2024 MarsdenLR 1617
HIGH COURT MALAYA SHAH ALAM
WONG MAU @ WONG MOI – Appellant
Versus
LOW SWEE LIN & ANOR – Respondent
[Civil Suit No: BA-22NCvC-103-03/2020]
The court ruled that the Plaintiff's claim was time barred under the Limitation Act, and no fraud or forgery was proven regarding the Power of Attorney, which was upheld as valid due to established consideration.
Headnote:(A) Limitation Act 1953 – Sections 6 and 29 – Power of Attorney Act 1949 – Claim for recovery of land based on fraud and constructive trust – Plaintiff's claim dismissed as time barred; no evidence of fraud or forgery established – Validity of Power of Attorney upheld as valuable consideration was proven. (Paras 40, 51, 62)
(B) Fraud and Forgery – Plaintiff failed to prove that the signature on the Power of Attorney was forged – Testimony of Defendants' witnesses preferred over Plaintiff's expert evidence. (Paras 42, 51)
(C) Counterclaim – Grant of Letters of Administration revoked due to existence of the Deceased's Last Will and Testament. (Paras 60, 62)
Facts of the case: The Plaintiff, wife of the Deceased, claimed the transfer of properties to the Defendants was fraudulent and sought to recover them. The Defendants contended that the transfer was valid and supported by valuable consideration. (Paras 4-10)
Findings of Court: The Plaintiff's claim was time barred, and the evidence did not support allegations of fraud or forgery. The Power of Attorney was valid, and the Defendants' counterclaim was upheld. (Paras 40, 51, 62)
Issues: Whether the Plaintiff's claim is time barred; whether fraud or forgery occurred; whether valuable consideration was given; whether the Power of Attorney was defective. (Paras 13, 14)
Ratio Decidendi: The court found that the Plaintiff's claim was time barred under the Limitation Act, and the evidence did not substantiate claims of fraud or forgery. The validity of the Power of Attorney was affirmed due to proven consideration. (Paras 40, 51)
Result: Plaintiff's claim dismissed; counterclaim upheld; Letters of Administration revoked.
JUDGMENT
[1] The following is the Court's decision at the end of a full trial between the parties. Trial commenced on 1 March 2023 and concluded on 23 August 2023. In total there were eight (8) witnesses called, three (3) by the Plaintiff and five (5) by the Defendants.
[2] Having gone through the pleadings of all parties, the evidence adduced at the trial both oral and documentary, and upon reviewing the submissions of counsel, this Court had on 12 March 2024 dismissed the Plaintiff's claim.
[3] Dissatisfied with the above decision, the Plaintiffs have since lodged an appeal against the above decision by way of a Notice of Appeal dated 29 March 2024 to the Court of Appeal. The following are my grounds of judgment in relation to the said appeal.
Factual Matrix Of The Plaintiff's Claim
[4] The Plaintiff is the wife of the Deceased, Low Kang. During the subsistence of their marriage, the Plaintiff and the Deceased had 7 children:
(a) Low Teng Hoo (m) (NRIC: 621123-10-7425);
(b) Low Ten Kooi (m) (NRIC: 650121-10-5867);
(c) Low Teng Eng (m) (NRIC: 661025-10-5967);
(d) Low Then Chuan (m) (NRIC: 671126-10-5615);
(e) Low Teng Meng (m) (NRIC: 700920-10-5647);
(f) Low Tian Lin (m) (NRIC: 720918-14-5293); and
(g) Low Tin Chin (f) (NRIC: 760414-10-5366).
[5] The 1st Defendant and 2nd Defendants are siblings of the Deceased and former in laws of the Plaintiff.
[6] Sometime in the year 2000, the Deceased suffered a stroke that resulted into him receiving treatment at Pantai Hospital. Subsequently, circa November 2002, he was diagnosed with pancreatic cancer. This time around, he received treatment at Tung Shin hospital. Despite receiving treatment, the Deceased passed away on 13 January 203 at 4.55am.
[7] On 3 February 2020 the Plaintiff was granted Letters of Administration to the estate of the Deceased (" LA ") by the Kuala Lumpur High Court on 3 February 2020.
[8] Based on a land search conducted by her solicitors, the Plaintiff discovered the following facts:
a. The Deceased was the registered proprietor in respect of amongst others two (2) properties known as HSD 285, PT12, Seksyen 15, Bandar Serendah, Daerah Ulu Selangor ("HSD 285") and HSD 300, Lot 13, Bandar Serendah, Ulu Selangor ("HSD 300").
b. HSD 285 and HSD 300 are now registered in the joint names of the Defendants with each of them owning an undivided ½ share in each property respectively.
c. the transfer of HSD 285 and HSD 300 was done after the death of the Deceased on 8 July 2003. In this regard, there was a transfer form executed on 8 July 2003 by the 1st Defendant, purportedly as the donee / attorney of the Deceased pursuant to a Power of Attorney dated 19 November 2002 (see pp 580-582 of Bundle B2);
[9] Thereafter, the Plaintiff commence the present suit against the Defendants premised on the following grounds:
i. the Plaintiff denies the authenticity of the Deceased's signature in the purported POA and amongst others, challenges the validity of the purported POA on various grounds;
ii. the Plaintiff also denies the validity of the transfer form, and the alleged position of the 1st Defendant being the purported donee/ attorney of the Deceased.
[10] The Plaintiff's also categorically denies the authenticity of the Deceased's signature in the purported Last Will and Testament of the Deceased dated 19 November 2002 ("purported Will" as at pp 583-586 of Bundle B2) produced by the Defendants.
Summary Of The Plaintiffs' Pleaded Case
[11] It is the Plaintiff's case that:
(a) The transfer of two properties to the Defendants (originally belonging to the Deceased and formed part of the Deceased's estate), known as HSD 285, PT 12, Seksyen 15, Bandar Serendah, Daerah Ulu Selangor ("HSD 285") and HSD 300, Lot 13, Bandar Serendah, Ulu Selangor ("HSD 300"), pursuant to the purported Power of Attorney dated 19 November 2002 ("purported POA") is null and void, void ab initio, invalid, illegal, ineffective, and / or inoperative, on the following grounds:
(i) There was no valuable consideratio
