The legal owner of property must provide evidence of payment to be recognized as the beneficial owner, especially during liquidation.

[1] The plaintiff in Suit 575 is a company under liquidation. The plaintiff was wound up by a court order dated 18 October 2011 at the instance of one Simon James Andrew Scott. Pursuant to a court order dated 16 March 2012, one Encik Augustine TK James ("Encik Augustine") was appointed as the provisional liquidator for the plaintiff company. The nature of the order that outlined the duties of Encik Augustine (who is SP3 at the trial) by the winding- up court are inter alia as follows:

(a) To carry out all the duties involved as the liquidator of the plaintiff company diligently in accordance with the provisions in the then Companies Act 1965 (" CA ") which are, inter alia, ss 228, 233 and 236; and

(b) To take all necessary and expedient measures in recording all assets owned by the plaintiff company and dispose of the same according to the market value.

[2] The subject matter that is in dispute in these two actions is in respect of two properties known as Lot E-37-03 ("Unit E-37") and Lot E-38-03 ("Unit E-38"), Type E in one commercial centre known as 3 Two Square, situated on part of the land held under HS(D) 240117, PT 8, Seksyen 36, Bandar Petaling Jaya, Selangor (collectively referred to as "the Subject Property").

[3] The defendant in Suit 575 (and the plaintiff in Suit 129) is a sole proprietor of a legal firm known as Messrs George Varughese.

The Sale And Purchase Of The Subject Property

[4] By two separate sales and purchase agreements ("SPAs") dated 30 November 2007 between 3 Two Square Sdn Bhd ("3 Two Square") as the vendor and developer and the plaintiff as the purchaser, the plaintiff had agreed to purchase both units E-37 and E-38 for RM845,770 and RM779,200 respectively.

[5] The purchase of the Subject Property was financed by CIMB Bank Berhad ("CIMB") by way of a third-party charge through a financial package known as the Flexi Business Premises Facility ("the Facility"). The borrowers of the Facility are A Thanushia ("Thanushia") and Suresh Supramaniam ("Suresh"). Both Thanushia and Suresh were the Directors of the plaintiff before the latter's winding up.

[6] According to the letter of offer from CIMB dated 22 April 2008 in respect of the Facility, part of the security was that pending the issuance of separate strata titles in respect of the Subject Property, Thanushia and Suresh would have to execute a deed of assignment of the same in favour of CIMB. The Facility was for the sum of RM1,412,742 with a monthly instalment amount of RM7,671.

[7] The plaintiff's case is that it is the rightful legal owner of the Subject Property. In the circumstances, in Suit 575, the plaintiff is seeking for an order for the eviction of the defendant and the delivery of vacant possession of the Subject Property.

[8] On the other hand, the defendant claimed that he is the beneficial owner of the Subject Property by virtue of a trust deed ("Trust Deed") and an irrevocable power of attorney ("IPA") both dated 31 January 2008. There is another document, which admissibility is in dispute, which is the plaintiff's Members Resolution ("Members Resolution) dated a day prior to the execution of the SPAs. The Members Resolution purportedly resolved that the Subject Property are to be held on trust by the plaintiff for the defendant as the beneficial owner of the same. The trust deed was entered into between the plaintiff as the trustee and the defendant as the beneficiary of the Subject Property. The IPA was also executed by the plaintiff in favour of the defendant, granting the defendant the absolute power to deal with the Subject Property.

[9] For the reasons aforesaid, the defendant (as the plaintiff) in Suit 129 has sought reliefs in the form of declaratory orders that the defendant is the benefici