Back
2010 MarsdenLR 684
HIGH COURT MALAYA JOHOR BAHRU
MOHD NASIR MOIDU – Appellant
Versus
LEE SWEE KIM – Respondent
[Civil Suit No: (MT-1) 22-192-1997]
The burden of proof in civil fraud cases lies with the plaintiff, requiring clear evidence beyond reasonable doubt to establish claims of forgery or fraud.
Headnote:(A) National Land Code - Section 340 - Indefeasibility of title - Plaintiff claimed transfer of land was invalid due to forgery and fraud. Court stated that the burden of proof lies with the plaintiff, who must establish claims of fraud or forgery beyond reasonable doubt. (Paras 2, 27, 31, 43, 48)
(B) Evidence Act 1950 - Standard of proof - It was ruled that in civil proceedings related to forgery, proof must meet the balance of probabilities standard, while fraud must be proven beyond reasonable doubt. (Paras 46, 49)
Facts of the case:
Plaintiff, the registered land owner, asserted that his signatures were forged in the land transfer to the defendant, who claimed to have bought the land legitimately. Defendant's witnesses confirmed the sale and signatures. Court assessed evidence presented during the trial, including expert testimony on signatures.
Findings of Court:
Allegations of fraud and forgery were unproven; defendant's title was upheld.
Issues: The court addressed whether the land transfer was procured through fraud and whether the signatures were forged.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the plaintiff's burden to prove his claims, ultimately finding the evidence insufficient.
Result: Plaintiff's claim dismissed with costs.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. plaintiff's ownership and claim of forgery. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. defendant's assertions of legal sale and documentation. (Para 3 , 4 , 5) |
Mohd. Nasir Bin Moidu ('the plaintiff') was the registered owner of a piece of land. The plaintiff is seeking a declaration that the transfer of the land to Lee Swee Kim ('the defendant') is null and void because his signatures on the transfer documentation were forged.
Plaintiff's Case
The plaintiff was the registered owner of the land held under HS(M) 4755 Lot 1990 Mukim Tebrau Daerah Johor Bahru Negeri Johor ('the Land'). The plaintiff's case is that the defendant obtained the title to the Land through fraud and or fraudulent misrepresentation and or forgery. Sometime in February 1990 the plaintiff handed over the title deed to the Land at a lawyer's office to one Ah Heng as security for a loan of RM100,000.00 given to his brother in law one En. Abidin Bin Kadamun. Ah Heng agreed to hold the title deed in trust and to return it to the plaintiff after Abidin repaid the loan.
In 1993 the plaintiff received a notice from the Inland Revenue Department asking him to submit a real property gains tax form. After receipt of the notice the plaintiff went to the lawyer's office to ask why the Land had been transferred without his consent and knowledge. It was then the plaintiff was informed that the title to the Land had been registered in favour of the defendant. The plaintiff denied signing any transfer form or sale and purchase agreement. He also denied signing an acknowledgement voucher in receipt of RM100,000.00. The plaintiff made a police report on 15 May 1995. The plaintiff's sister Puan Esah Binti Maidin (PW2) also gave evidence. PW2 said that her later husband ((Abidin') told her that he took a loan from a Chinese man in order to renovate the house. Abidin asked the plaintiff to give him the title deed to the Land as security for the loan. The plaintiff agreed to hand over the title deed after being persuaded by PW2. Later Abidin told PW2 that he had obtained a loan from Ah Heng. In 1995 the plaintiff told PW2 that the Land had been transferred to the defendant illegally.
Defendant's Case
The defendant testified that in 1991 the plaintiff agreed to sell the Land to her for RM100,000.00. She paid the purchase price to the plaintiff on 1 January 1991. After the purchase price was paid the plaintiff handed over the title deed and signed the transfer documentation. The transaction took place at the offices of Messrs Tia & Noordin, a firm of advocates and solicitors.
Ms Ta Keh Bee (DW2) worked as a conveyancing clerk at Messrs Tia & Noordin. DW2 said that the plaintiff wanted to sell the Land to the defendant at RM100,000.00 and that Tia & Noordin were instructed to prepare the sale and purchase agreement and other transfer documentation. DW2 prepared the transfer documentation for the transfer of the Land from the plaintiff to the defendant. DW2 was present when the plaintiff signed the transfer form, the sale and purchase agreement and the acknowledgement receipt Mr. Tia Chak Yit @ Chai Chak Yit (DW3) an advocate and solicitor testified that he only attested the signatures of the plaintiff and the defendant. The transaction was handled by his partner Hj Noordin. DW3 said that before he attested the documents DW2 had confirmed to him that the documents were signed by the parties.
Haji Noor Din Bin Hussin (DW4) an advocate and solicitor testified that the plaintiff came to his office in 1991 because he wanted to sell the Land. DW4 said that he instructed DW2 to prepare the sale and purchase agreement. Both the plaintiff and the defendant signed the sale and purchase agreement and the transfer documentation in his office before him and DW2. DW4 said that the plaintiff signed the sale and purchase agreement and the transfer documentation voluntarily and that the plaintiff took receipt of the purchase price of RM100,000.00. DW4 also said that he and DW2 explained the tr
