The court established that defendants breached fiduciary duties and engaged in fraud, resulting in a constructive trust for the benefit of sub-lot purchasers over the impugned land.

JUDGMENT

(L.1)

Hayatul Akmal Abdul Aziz J:

Introduction

[1] In a nutshell:

1.1 The present case centred on alleged impropriety, fraud, conspiracy to defraud and breach of fiduciary duty committed by the defendants against the plaintiffs over a piece of agricultural land registered under the first defendant (D1), who is allegedly under the management and administration by the second defendant (D2) for over forty-five (45) years, that had acted adversely to the detriment of the plaintiffs' interest causing losses and damages.

1.2 The plaintiffs (sub-lot purchasers) claim beneficial ownership over the land entrusted to D1 and D2 to be managed according to their prior agreement when purchasing the rights to the undivided share in the impugned land under the Sub-Lot Purchase Agreement 1978 (SLPA).

1.3 Consequent to the alleged impropriety, the sub-lot purchasers claim they have been denied their beneficial interests and benefits derive from the said land for approximately over forty-five years, and they now seek legal recourse against the defendants.

The Five Civil Suits

1.4 The following five civil suits were ordered to be heard together as they were fundamentally founded on similar facts and evidential materials:

(I) WA-22NCVC-68-01/2018 (Suit 68)

(II) WA-22NCVC-567-10/2017 (Suit 567)

(III) WA-22NCVC-208-04/2019 (Suit 208)

(IV) WA-22NCVC-212-04/2019 (Suit 212)

(V) WA-22NCVC-219-04/2019 (Suit 219)

[2] On 15 July 2024:

2.1 After considering the pleadings, the totality of the evidence at the trial together with the respective arguments of all parties, I find that there are merits in those claims I allowed the plaintiffs' claims with costs payable by the defendants within thirty (30) days from the date hereof.

2.2 Aggrieved, the defendants appealed as follows:

(1) Suit 68: D1/Koperasi, D2/Gopalakrishnan appealed against the entire decision against them, while D3/Metro appealed part of the judgment and cost.

(2) Suit 567: D1/Koperasi and D2/Gopalakrishnan appealed against the entire decision against them.

(3) Suit 208: D1/Koperasi and D2/Gopalakrishnan appealed against the entire decision against them.

(4) Suit 212: D1/Koperasi, D2/Gopalakrishnan appealed against the entire decision against them, while D3/Metro appealed part of the judgment and cost.

(5) Suit 219: D1/Koperasi appealed against the entire decision against it, while D2/Metro appealed part of the judgment and cost.

Since all the suits above are tried together over similar facts and evidential materials, I will only prepare a single ground of judgment. The following are the basis of my decision:

The Basic Facts

[3] An undeveloped piece of agricultural land held under Geran; 307585, Lot 52339, s 10, Bandar Kajang, Daerah Ulu Langat, Negeri Selangor (formerly known as Geran: No 18080, Lot No 8853, Mukim Kajang, Daerah Ulu Langat) with an area of approximately 3,831 hectares (9.4666 acres), registered under the name of the first defendant (D1) a registered Koperasi (associated with the Indian political party, MIC) under the Co-Operative Societies Act 1993 (the impugned land):

(1) On 20 March 1978 or thereat, D2 and four other individuals (original purchasers) bought the impugned land (agricultural) for a purchase price of RM192,018.75 (exhibit: P1)

(2) They paid the first 10% but could not finance the balance purchase price on their own.

(3) They then devised a sub-lot scheme by informally demarcating and creating temporary sub-lots of the impugned land they didn't yet own into approximately 6,000-foot bungalow-sized lots as a housing project/scheme.

(4) They sold the purported sub-lot rights to the said demarcated units (50 sub-lots of undivided shares) to interested individuals via a Sub-Lot Purchase Agreement (SLPA), including the plaintiffs, to collect money to fund the balance purchase price of the impugned land. One of the SLPAs used for the purpose with its terms and conditions can be seen in exhibit P2.

(5) The sub-lot purchasers, including the plaintiffs, were assured that D1 (a MIC-related Koper