Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2023 MarsdenLR 115

HIGH COURT MALAYA PULAU PINANG
IBRAHIM HASHIM – Appellant
Versus
DEVI MULYA TRISTIATI & ANOR – Respondent
[Civil Appeal No: PA-22NCVC-186-09/2017]

Petitioner Advocates:RSN Rayer,Meharaj Selvarajoo ,Respondent Advocate: Mohammad Irwan Shah Md Asri

The burden of proof lies with the claimant, and without sufficient evidence of undue influence or breach of contract, the transfer of property remains valid, affirming the bank's interest under the National Land Code.

Headnote:(A) Contracts Act 1950 - Section 16 - Evidence Act 1950 - Sections 101 and 103 - Undue influence, manipulation, coercion, conversion, detinue, trespass to property, and unlawful interference with property claimed by the husband against ex-wife and bank regarding ownership of house. The court found that the husband failed to prove undue influence or any breach of promise, ruling that he willingly transferred the house. The transfer was valid, and the bank's charge was upheld as it was registered in good faith. (Paras 16, 28, 63, 91, 120, 163)

Facts of the case:
The husband, after a marriage influenced by promises from the wife, transferred the house to her. Post-divorce, he claimed undue influence and sought the return of the house, alleging the wife breached promises and manipulated him.

Findings of Court:
The court found no evidence of undue influence or manipulation. The husband willingly transferred the house, and the bank acted in good faith when it charged the property.

Issues: The court addressed whether the wife breached marital promises, whether she used undue influence to obtain the house, and whether the bank had an indefeasible interest in the property.

Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the burden of proof lies with the claimant and found the husband's assertions unsubstantiated. The transfer of the house was valid and the bank's interest was protected under the National Land Code.

Result: The husband's claim was dismissed with costs.

Table of Content
1. overview of the case and parties involved. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4)
2. details of the marriage and promises made. (Para 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13)
3. transfer of the house and allegations of undue influence. (Para 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18)
4. claims regarding the torts of conversion and unlawful acts. (Para 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26)
5. reliefs sought by the plaintiff. (Para 27 , 28 , 29 , 30)
6. defendant's arguments against the plaintiff's claims. (Para 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 41 , 42 , 43 , 44 , 45)
7. citibank's defense regarding the loan and ownership. (Para 46 , 47 , 48 , 49 , 50)
8. fundamental principles guiding the judgment. (Para 52 , 53 , 54 , 55 , 56 , 57 , 58 , 59 , 60)
9. assessment of alleged marital promises. (Para 63 , 64 , 65 , 66 , 67 , 68 , 69 , 70 , 71 , 72 , 73 , 74 , 75 , 76 , 77 , 78 , 79)
10. analysis of undue influence claims. (Para 90 , 91 , 92 , 93 , 94 , 95 , 96 , 97 , 98 , 99 , 100)
11. examination of the tort of conversion. (Para 120 , 121 , 122 , 123 , 124 , 125 , 126 , 127 , 128 , 129 , 130 , 131 , 132 , 133 , 134 , 135 , 136)
12. consideration of detinue claims. (Para 137 , 138 , 139 , 140 , 141 , 142)
13. evaluation of trespass claims. (Para 143 , 144 , 145 , 146 , 147 , 148 , 149)
14. discussion on unlawful interference. (Para 150 , 151 , 152 , 153 , 154 , 155 , 156 , 157 , 158 , 159 , 160)
15. citibank's status as a bona fide purchaser. (Para 163 , 164 , 165 , 166 , 167 , 168 , 169 , 170 , 171 , 172 , 173 , 174 , 175)
16. final judgment and order. (Para 179)

JUDGMENT

Kenneth St James JC:

Prelusion

[1] An older man. A younger woman. A marriage. A house. A transfer of the house to the wife. A loan from the bank. A charge over the house to the bank. A divorce.

[2] The husband wants the house back.

[3] The husband sues the now-ex-wife and the bank, for the return of the house, for various declarations and for damages.

[4] Should the ex-wife and the bank be ordered to return the house to the husband?

The Pertinent Pleaded Facts - The Plaintiff's Claim

[5] It is expedient to set out the very words and expressions used in the pleadings. The words placed within inverted commas are words either pleaded by the plaintiff in his statement of claim, or pleaded by the first defendant in her defence.

[6] The plaintiff (Ibrahim) pleads these material facts.

[7] In 1999 (18 years before this suit was filed in 2017), the first defendant (Devi) offered to take care of Ibrahim as his caregiver. Soon after this caregiving relationship started, Devi influenced Ibrahim to marry her.

[8] Devi spoke words of love and affection to Ibrahim. The expressions of love included:

(i) "my heart has an instinct to love abang";

(ii) "one's age and appearance is not a barrier in love";

(iii) "I will still love abang even though you are old".

[9] Devi made promises to Ibrahim that included:

(i) the promise to be his wife and "remain his wife" until his demise;

(ii) the promise not to leave him;

(iii) the promise to take care of him "permanently", until his demise;

(iv) the promise to continue to give him her "undivided love".

[10] Devi influenced Ibrahim with these promises. And Ibrahim believed her.

[11] Ibrahim "informed" Devi, and Devi "agreed" that if she breaches her promises:

(i) Ibrahim would be entitled to divorce her;

(ii) she would not be entitled to claim maintenance from him;

(iii) she would not be entitled to claim "any property or division of property" from the marriage; and

(iv) Ibrahim would be entitled to "claim and recover" any property "which he had transferred" to Devi.

[12] These matters between Ibrahim and Devi constituted the contract between them.

[13] They were married in September 2000.

[14] At the time when they were married, Ibrahim owned two properties:

(i) a house at No 6, Jalan Sungai Ara 4, Taman Sungai Ara, 11900 Bayan Lepas, Pulau Pinang (house). He bought the house years ago in 1985; and

(ii) a shophouse at No 96, Jalan Mayang Pasir, Bayan Baru, 11950 Pulau Pinang (shophouse).

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2023 MarsdenLR 115

HIGH COURT MALAYA PULAU PINANGIBRAHIM HASHIM – AppellantVersusDEVI MULYA TRISTIATI & ANOR – Respondent[Civil Appeal No: PA-22NCVC-186-09/2017]

The burden of proof lies with the claimant, and without sufficient evidence of undue influence or breach of contract, the transfer of property remains valid, affirming the bank's interest under the National Land Code.

Cases Referred (10)

HIGH COURT MALAYA PULAU PINANG
IBRAHIM HASHIM – Appellant
Versus
DEVI MULYA TRISTIATI & ANOR – Respondent
[Civil Appeal No: PA-22NCVC-186-09/2017]