The burden of proof for fraud lies with the plaintiff, requiring evidence beyond reasonable doubt, which was not fulfilled, resulting in dismissal of the claims against the defendants.

[1] In this action the plaintiff is claiming for the return of her land that was sold to the third defendant and subsequently to the fourth defendant. In the alternative she is claiming for damages. The land was sold to the third defendant through a power of attorney that she had executed in favour of the first defendant. It is alleged that the first defendant and the second defendant had committed fraud by selling the land to the third defendant. The plaintiff had already entered judgment in default against the first and second defendants and the instant trial proceeded against the third and fourth defendants only.

The Brief Facts Of The Plaintiff's Claim

[2] The plaintiff (Rokiah bt Suhaili) testified on her own behalf and called one other witness. Her evidence can be summarised as follows. She is a native of Sarawak. She was the owner of a parcel of land known as Lot 451, Block 17 Salak Land District which is classified as native area land. It is 8,134 sq m in size. The first defendant (Emily Batu ak Bagang) is also a native of Sarawak. She traded under the style of Kai Hong Development Company. The plaintiff has alleged that the second defendant (Augustine Ling Chee Hua), who is a relative of Emily Batu, is the controlling mind of this firm. The plaintiff said that sometime before June 2001, Augustine Ling approached her and represented that Emily Batu could develop Lot 451. He assured her that he would be personally involved in the development of Lot 451 into a commercial and residential area. He also told her that he was a competent and capable contractor. He asked for a power of attorney over her land. As consideration, the plaintiff was promised RM15,000 in cash plus a further consideration of two units of single-storey semi-detached houses and one unit single storey terrace intermediate house. Based on the above representation from Augustine Ling, the plaintiff signed the development agreement with Emily Batu. The plaintiff could not remember when she signed the development agreement but it is dated 7 August 2009. At the same time, she signed an irrevocable power of attorney over Lot 451 in favour of Emily Batu. The plaintiff also signed an agreement with one Shukriyah How bt Abdullah and a deed of revocation to revoke the power of attorney that had been granted to the latter. Shukriyah How bt Abdullah is also a beneficiary of the land. The execution of all the above documents was witnessed by an advocate Encik Osman Ibrahim ('PW2'). The plaintiff has only basic understanding of English and therefore did not understand the contents. Encik Osman Ibrahim briefly explained to her the said documents. However, the project of Augustine Ling on Lot 451 did not take off. Augustine Ling then told the plaintiff that he was constructing residential units on a different parcel of land, ie Lot 9786. He told her that approval had already been obtained for the development of Lot 9786 and convinced her to substitute the consideration stated in the development agreement with a detached house on Lot 9786. The plaintiff was then persuaded by Augustine Ling to sign the supplementary agreement. The supplementary agreement relieved Emily Batu of her obligations under the development agreement. However, the plaintiff never received any detached house as promised in the supplementary agreement on Lot 9786. She sought legal advice and discovered that Augustine Ling had never received approval to develop Lot 9786 and had no legal or beneficial right over Lot 9786. The plaintiff also discovered that Augustine Ling sold her land to the third defendant (Serira Sdn Bhd) for RM730,000. Serira Sdn Bhd then resold the plaintiff's land to the fourth defendant (Rose ak Enteri) for the sum of RM800,000. Lot 451 was subsequently developed by SRK Resources Sdn Bhd. The plaintiff said that she never gave consent for the