Back
2014 MarsdenLR 2417
COURT OF APPEAL PUTRAJAYA
LIAW SONG KEE & ANOR – Appellant
Versus
SAW CHAI KEE – Respondent
[Civil Appeal No: R-02-767-04/2013]
In civil cases, the burden of proof rests on the plaintiff to establish claims of ownership, which was not met in this case resulting in the dismissal of trust assertions.
Headnote:(A) Courts of Judicature Act 1964 - Section 69 - Ownership of land - The appellant's appeal against the High Court's ruling on land ownership claims, asserting beneficial ownership based on an alleged trust, was upheld. The finding indicated lack of sufficient evidence to justify the claim. (Paras [1], [22], [24])
(B) Burden of Proof - In civil proceedings, the burden lies with the party asserting a claim, requiring proof on the balance of probabilities. The plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case, as he lacked substantive evidence of ownership or recognition of trust by the deceased. (Paras [21], [24])
Facts of the case:
The plaintiff, brother of the deceased, claimed beneficial ownership of land transferred and registered in the deceased's name. The deceased was alleged to have held the land in trust for the plaintiff. The plaintiff constructed structures on the land without the deceased's consent. (Paras [2]-[12])
Findings of Court:
The evidence did not substantiate the claims of the plaintiff regarding beneficial ownership, thus overturning the lower court's ruling based on inadequate substantiation of a trust relationship. (Paras [22], [25])
Issues: The main question addressed was whether the plaintiff had established a claim for beneficial ownership of the land and the existence of a trust. (Paras [1], [14])
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the appellant did not satisfy the evidential burden required to assert beneficial ownership, and the prior finding of a trust relationship was unsupported by facts. (Paras [22], [25])
Result: Appeal allowed, and the decision of the learned Judicial Commissioner is set aside.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. background of property ownership and disputes. (Para 1 , 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 2. background of land dispute and ownership. (Para 7) |
| 3. plaintiff claims beneficial ownership. (Para 8 , 9 , 10) |
| 4. defendants assert lawful ownership. (Para 11 , 12 , 13) |
| 5. judicial commissioner's reasoning. (Para 14) |
| 6. appellate court's powers and jurisdiction. (Para 15 , 16 , 18) |
| 7. appellate court's powers and standards. (Para 17 , 19) |
| 8. burden of proof in civil cases. (Para 20 , 21 , 22 , 23) |
[1] This is the appellants' appeal against the decision of the learned Judicial Commissioner allowing the respondent's claim for an order declaring him to be the lawful owner of a piece of land and that the appellants hold the said land as trustees for the respondent and other consequential orders. On 4 September 2014, we heard submissions of learned counsel for the parties. After perusing the records of appeal, the grounds of decision of the learned Judicial Commissioner and the written submission of the parties, we allowed the appeal with costs. We now give our grounds for allowing the appeal. We will refer to the parties as they were referred to at the High Court.
Introduction
[2] In 1973, the land in question was transferred to and registered in the name of one Saw Ching Tau @ Saw Poon San ("the deceased").
[3] After the demise of the deceased on or about 1999, the land was registered under the joint names of the 1st and 2nd defendants around 2002. The 1st defendant is the widow of the deceased whilst the 2nd defendant is their son. The plaintiff is the brother of the deceased.
[4] In 2003, the plaintiff erected a house and warehouse on the land.
[5] In 2003, the defendants filed an action (OS No 24-183-2003) against the plaintiff claiming for vacant possession of the land. Consent judgment was entered on 26 April 2004 whereby it was, inter alia agreed that: (i) the private caveat lodged by the plaintiff against the land be cancelled, (ii) the plaintiff be allowed to remain on the land for 2 years with effect from August 2003.
[6] On 19 November 2009, the consent judgment was set aside pursuant to a writ action which was filed by the plaintiff to set aside the same.
[7] In 2011, the writ action relating to this appeal was filed by the plaintiff.
[8] Briefly stated, the plaintiff asserts that he is the beneficial owner of the land. In December 1973, the plaintiff entered into an agreement with one Ismail bin Mat (the then owner of the land) to buy the land for RM5,000.00. Meanwhile, Ismail had transferred the land to one Tan Leong Choi as security for a loan. He had given the money to the deceased his brother to transact the transfer of the land. However, the land was eventually transferred and registered in the deceased's name and not in the plaintiff's name.
[9] The plaintiff also asserts that the deceased acknowledged that he held the land on trust for the plaintiff. The deceased also promised to transfer the land to the plaintiff but did not do so until his demise in 1999.
[10] The plaintiff further contends that after the land was purchased in 1973 he had filled the land with red earth and planted fruit trees on the land. He also erected a hut on the land. In 2003, he erected a house on the land where he and his family resided in.
[11] For the defendants, it is contended that the deceased purchased the land from Tan Leong Chooi with funds from the deceased's father and father in law.
[12] It is also contended that during the deceased's lifetime, the plaintiff was never allowed to enter on the land. The plaintiff had encroached on the land without the permission of the deceased or the defendants. The plaintiff erected a house and warehouse on the land in 2003 without the defendant's consent.
[13] As such, the defendants contend that they are the lawful registered owners of the land.
Findings Of The Learned Judicial Commissioner
[14] According to the grounds of judgment, the learned Judicial Commissioner's decision is essentially premised on the inf
