A fraudulent concealment renders transfer invalid and a claim not time-barred under the Limitation Act, allowing relief.

[1] The following is the court's decision at the end of a full trial between the parties. Trial commenced on 7 December 2021 and was swiftly concluded on 15 June 2022. During the trial, a total of five (5) witnesses was called by the plaintiff. On the other hand, the first defendant ("1st defendant") called three (3) witnesses and the second ("2nd defendant") and third defendants ("3rd defendant") had called four (4) witnesses to testify.

[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 23 December 2022 allowed the plaintiff's claim in part and dismissed the 2nd and 3rd defendant's counterclaim.

[3] The defendants have since lodged an appeal against the above decision by way of a Notice of Appeal dated 13 January 2023 and 18 January 2023 respectively to the court of Appeal. The following are my grounds of judgment in relation to the said appeal.

Brief Facts

[4] The factual matrix of the plaintiff's claim are as follows:

a. Circa February 2012, the plaintiff was facing financial difficulties. Knowing that the plaintiff needed financial assistance, SP1 (the plaintiff's friend), introduced him to SD3 in his capacity as a representative of the 1st defendant for purposes of securing a loan. The meeting took place at SD3's office in Jalan Klang Lama and later at the 1st defendant's solicitor's office in Petaling Jaya, Selangor.

b. Having met the plaintiff, the 1st defendant through SD3 agreed to provide a loan of RM600,000.00 to the plaintiff subject to the following conditions:

i. The plaintiff will only receive the sum of RM412,000.00 while the balance of RM188,000.00 will be used as loan interest payment for a period of six (6) months and legal costs;

ii. The plaintiff is required to hand over the original document of title to the land grant Mukim No 2123 Lot 20908, Setapak Mukim, Gombak District, Selangor State ("the Land") to the 1st defendant as security for the loan.

c. The plaintiff subsequently signed the loan agreement document at the 1st defendant's solicitor's office on 8 February 2012. The title of the Land was also handed over to the 1st defendant. Thereafter, the plaintiff received a sum of RM100,000.00. On 9 February 2012, the plaintiff subsequently received a balance sum of RM312,000.00 via telegraphic transfer to the plaintiff's bank account.

d. It is the plaintiff's plaint that he was not given a copy of the loan agreement.

e. On or about December 2012, the plaintiff contacted SD3 and requested for the Land title document be returned to him. This was to enable the plaintiff to mortgage the Land to Malayan Banking Berhad who in principle had agreed to give the plaintiff a loan of RM1.3 million. SD3 refused to do so and instead placed a condition that he will only agree to return the title, if the amount of RM1.3 million was paid to him to recover the Land. As a result, the original loan of RM600,000.00 could not be paid or explained by the plaintiff to the defendant or his representative SD3.

f. In May 2017, the plaintiff was approached by the real estate agent of the 1st defendant (SD4) telling him that the plaintiff's Land had been purchased by the 2nd defendant and 3rd defendant at a price of RM690,000.00.

g. The plaintiff then conducted a search on the Land and found that the Land has been transferred to the name of the 1st defendant through a Power of Attorney dated 27 June 2012. Further, the transfer of ownership was registered on 25 May 2013. The plaintiff made police reports and entered a private caveat against the land. In 2018, the plaintiff filed legal proceedings seeking relief against the transfer of the Land from his name to the 1st defendant and also ag