Table of Content
1. the appellant's claim rests on the deceased's intentions regarding property and loans. (Para 1 , 12)
2. the appeal primarily revolves around the claims made due to power of attorney and trust. (Para 2 , 3)
3. consideration of financial transactions as evidence of trust further complicates the case. (Para 4 , 11 , 13 , 14)
4. judicial interpretation of power of attorney forms a pivotal issue regarding irrevocability. (Para 5 , 6)
5. court grapples with the definitions of duties under a power of attorney. (Para 16)

[1] The appellant/plaintiff's appeal is against part of the decision of the learned Judicial Commissioner who disallowed a substantial claim of the plaintiff against the estate of his brother (deceased) who is represented by the defendant who is the deceased's wife. In the instant case, evidence had been adduced in court to show the relationship between the deceased and the wife had been estranged.

[2] The primary facts supported by evidence in our own words are as follows:

(i) the plaintiff had given financial assistance to the deceased on various occasions, and even after death;

(ii) the deceased had given a Power of Attorney to the plaintiff to sell his bungalow house (Bungalow) and take the proceeds absolutely;

(iii) the plaintiff had fully settled the deceased's outstanding loan in respect of the Bungalow;

(iv) the deceased had subsequently sold the Bungalow and from the proceeds, he paid the plaintiff a sum of money and the balance was used to settle the deceased's debts and to purchase a terrace house;

(v) the plaintiff had paid for medical expenses, etc for the deceased who died in India and also for transportation expenses to bring the deceased's body back to Malaysia;

(vi) the plaintiff had given evidence supported by documentary evidence to show that the deceased was indebted to the plaintiff and that resulted in the execution of the Power of Attorney.

[3] The plaintiff's cause of action is anchored on breach of trust, fraud and repayment of money advanced until the deceased's burial, etc. The prayers in the Statement of Claim read as follows:

"(1) An Order and Declaration that the said SOMA SUNDARAM DORAISWAMY (deceased) had assigned his interest in the said Property held under No. Pendaftaran 3208, Lot 152, Seksyen 6, Bandar Petaling Jaya, Daerah Kuala Lumpur, having a Postal Address No 11, Jalan 6/6, 46000 Petaling Jaya, Selangor to the plaintiff vide a Power of Attorney dated 2 January 2004 and the plaintiff was entitled absolutely under Cl 21 of the said Power of Attorney to the said Property and/or to all proceeds from the sale of the said Property.

(2) An Order and Declaration that the defendant pays the plaintiff the sum of RM900,005.00 being the Balance Proceeds received by the said SOMA SUNDARAM DORAISWAMY (deceased) from the sale of the said property.

(3) Further an Order and Declaration that upon the sale of the said Property Held under HS(M) 8507 PT 1458, Mukim Damansara. Bandar Sunway, Daerah Petaling, Negeri Selangor having a postal address at No 15, Jalan PJS 914, Bandar Sunway, 46150, Petaling Jaya, the sum of RM900,005.00 under para 57 (2) above be deducted and paid to the Plaintiff together with the further sum RM141,936.30 stated at para 54 above.

(4) Further an Order and Declaration that the plaintiff be authorised to execute the Sale & Purchase Agreement and Memorandum of Transfer and all other requisite documents for the sale of the property held under HS(M) 8507 PT 1458, Mukim Damansara, Bundar Sunway, Daerah Petaling, Negeri Selangor having a postal address at No. 15, Jalan PJS 914, Bandar Sunway, 46150, Petaling Jaya to the Intended Purchaser Teng Chuan Heng and/or any-other Intended Purchaser at a Purchase Price of RM790,000.00 or above (if possible).

(5) An Order and Declaration that the Plaintiff be authorised to receive and retain the sum of RM1,041,947.30 from the sale of the land held under HS(M) 8507 PT 1458, Mukim Damansara, Bundar Sunway, Daerah Petaling, Negeri Selangor

Click Here to Read the rest of this document