Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2025 MarsdenLR 2680

HIGH COURT MALAYA MUAR
NAM AH TEE@NAM TING KUANG – Appellant
Versus
NAM YAW SHUANG & ANOR – Respondent
[Civil Suit No: JB-22NCVC-2-01/2022]

Petitioner Advocates:Teoh Tiong Jin,Law Cheun Yao ,Respondent Advocate: Stanislaus J Vincent Cross,Koh Sze Jie,Kor Weizhen,Amirul Rafie

A successful claim of non-est factum requires clear evidence that the signer did not understand the nature of the document, which was not established here.

Headnote:(A) Laws cited: National Land Code (Revised 2020) - Section 211; Evidence Act 1950 - Section 92.

(B) Key legal principles include the doctrine of "non-est factum" where the burden lies on the plaintiff to prove the plea strictly (Para 26).

(C) The 1st Defendant was entrusted with the management of the family business and properties (Para 12).

(D) The main issues concerned the legitimacy of property transfers, allegations of fraudulent misrepresentation, and the plaintiff's understanding of the transfer documents (Para 24). (E) The Court found that the Plaintiff had not established the elements of non-est factum or fraudulent conveyance, deeming the transfers valid (Paras 112, 113). (F)

Result: Plaintiff's claims against the Defendants dismissed (Para 114). (G) Parties involved: Plaintiff (husband), 1st Defendant (eldest son), 2nd Defendant (wife).

Table of Content
1. family property dispute background (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10)
2. plaintiff's ownership and actions regarding properties (Para 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20)
3. witness testimonies outlined (Para 21 , 22 , 23)
4. illiteracy claim impacting legality of transfers (Para 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31)
5. claim of fraudulent transfers due to abuse of trust (Para 32 , 33 , 34 , 35)
6. inconsistencies in defendants' testimonies (Para 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 41)
7. legal standards for proving fraud (Para 42 , 43 , 44 , 45)
8. defendants' argument for voluntary transfer (Para 46 , 47 , 48 , 49 , 50)
9. testimonies on monetary contributions from 1st defendant (Para 51 , 52 , 53 , 54 , 55 , 56 , 57)
10. defense claims regarding plaintiff's awareness of property transfers (Para 58 , 59 , 60 , 61)
11. defendants' contention of plaintiff's understanding of documentation (Para 62 , 63 , 64 , 65 , 66)
12. court's rejection of defendants' estoppel argument (Para 67 , 68 , 69 , 70)
13. court's observations on plaintiff's actions post-transfer (Para 71 , 72 , 73 , 74 , 75)
14. acknowledgment of plaintiff's document execution history (Para 76 , 77 , 78 , 79)
15. cctv transcripts and their evidentiary admissibility (Para 80 , 81 , 82)
16. court's finding against non-est factum claim (Para 83 , 84)
17. findings on contributions influencing property transfers (Para 85 , 86 , 87 , 88 , 89)
18. family understanding versus written agreements (Para 90 , 91 , 92)
19. judicial sentiments regarding defendants' trustworthiness (Para 93 , 94 , 95 , 96)
20. implications of lack of written agreements on family arrangements (Para 97 , 98 , 99 , 100 , 101)
21. court's conclusion on fraudulent misrepresentation (Para 102 , 103)
22. statutory compliance regarding transfer forms attestation (Para 104 , 105 , 106)
23. case law supporting irregularities in documentation (Para 107 , 108 , 109 , 110 , 111)
24. court's dismissal of plaintiff's claims (Para 112)
25. conclusion and order in the case (Para 113 , 114)

Suria Kumar Dj Paul J:

Introduction

[1] This matter concerns yet another family dispute over properties.

[2] The dispute ended up with all family members testifying as witnesses in Court. One is on the Plaintiff's side and two others are on the Defendants' side. There were two teams in the family.

Background Facts

[3] The Plaintiff and the 2nd Defendant are husband and wife. They have four children. The 1st Defendant is the eldest son. Their two (2) other sons are Nam Yuh Qing, Nam Yong Seng and the daughter is Nam Wan Li.

[4] In 1996, the Plaintiff established a company called Maju Jaya Foam Sdn Bhd This company was primarily involved in the business of manufacturing mattresses, pillows, cushions and other related products. It was a family business.

[5] The 1st Defendant was involved in this family business since his schooling days. The 2nd Defendant was also involved in the family business and assisted in the production line of the said company.

[6] Maju Jaya Foam Sdn Bhd was subsequently wound up. Another company called Environment Support Sdn Bhd ("ESSB") was set up in 2002 to take over the family business.

[7] Before the dispute between the parties, the Plaintiff owned the following properties at one point in time:

(i) A plantation land held under No Hakmilik GM 2723, No Lot 3855, di Mukim Linau, Daerah Batu Pahat, Johor, ("Lot 3855");

(ii) ½ share in the plantation land held under No Hakmilik GM 6535, No Lot 5864, di Mukim Tanjong Sembrong, Daerah Batu Pahat, Johor ("Lot 5864");

(iii) ½ share in the residential property held under Geran 586117, No Lot 53841, di Mukim Simpang Kanan, Daerah Batu Pahat, Johor (previously held under H.S.(D) 59541, No PT PTD 53934, Mukim Simpang Kanan, Negeri Johor ("House No 11");

(iv) An ancestral land held under Geran 390930, No PT Lot 51242, Mukim Simpang Kanan, Daerah Batu Pahat, Negeri Johor with a factory erected thereon ("Lot 51242");

(v) ½ share in the plantation land held under HSM 919A, MLO

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2025 MarsdenLR 2680

HIGH COURT MALAYA MUARNAM AH TEE@NAM TING KUANG – AppellantVersusNAM YAW SHUANG & ANOR – Respondent[Civil Suit No: JB-22NCVC-2-01/2022]

A successful claim of non-est factum requires clear evidence that the signer did not understand the nature of the document, which was not established here.

Cases Referred (6)

HIGH COURT MALAYA MUAR
NAM AH TEE@NAM TING KUANG – Appellant
Versus
NAM YAW SHUANG & ANOR – Respondent
[Civil Suit No: JB-22NCVC-2-01/2022]