The Plaintiff successfully proved the existence and terms of a loan agreement, shifting the burden of proof to the Defendant, who failed to demonstrate forgery or that the loan was a gift.

Introduction

[1] After a full trial, the Sessions Court found the Appellant/Defendant liable to re-pay RM250,000.00 with interest and costs to the Respondent/Plaintiff under an RM275,000.00 friendly loan agreement dated 5 October 2018 ("Agreement"). According to the terms of the Agreement, the RM275,000.00 was repayable in eight instalments between 31 January 2019 and 31 August 2019.

[2] I heard and dismissed the appeal by the Defendant/Appellant as I found no error on the part of the trial Judge to warrant appellate interference. In these brief grounds, I will refer to the parties as they were in the Court below.

Facts in Dispute

[3] The Plaintiff's case is that the Agreement was prepared and signed at the Defendant's request to document the repayment terms for various advances that the Plaintiff had made to the Defendant or at his request between February and April 2018. Thus, the Plaintiff sought to prove that:

(a) Remittances totalling RM275,000.00 had been made to the Defendant or at his request; and

(b) The subsequent Agreement on the repayment is valid and binding.

[4] The gist of the Defence is that the Defendant never received the RM275,000.00 allegedly borrowed and that he never signed the Agreement. According to the Defendant, someone had forged his signature on the Agreement.

[5] The Defendant pleaded instead that the Plaintiff did remit RM220,000.00 to him in March 2018, but this was intended as a gratuitous gift of funds to assist the Defendant to make monthly salary payments to the Plaintiff's son, Dr Vigna Raj A/L Sithamparanathan ("Dr Vigna").

[6] According to the Defendant, Dr Vigna needed help with employment due to a mental disorder which prevented him from practicing as a medical doctor. The Defendant employed him as Managing Director of an elder care business that he was setting up with Dr Vigna called Metro Eldercare Sdn Bhd ("MEC").

[7] MEC was incorporated on 9 August 2018 with three shareholders - the Defendant (300,000 shares), Ushadevi a/p Velayutham (150,000 shares) and Dr Vigna (10,000 shares). The Defendant claimed that Dr Vigna resigned on 31 July 2019 following various allegations of misconduct.

[8] The Plaintiff's version is simply that the Defendant and Dr Vigna decided to start the elder care business and the Plaintiff provided funds to help his son, including funds in evidence which were transferred first to Dr Vigna for use. The Defendant later suggested that the funds provided by the Plaintiff be collectively treated as a friendly loan and the Agreement was drawn up on that basis.

[9] The Plaintiff, Defendant and Dr Vigna all testified at the trial, and the case turned on the trial Judge's evaluation of the evidence and findings of fact based on her assessment of their credibility as witnesses and the consistency of their testimony with the contemporaneous documents in evidence.

Analysis And Findings

Remittances Of Funds

[10] The Plaintiff tendered evidence that funds were remitted to the Defendant comprising the total sum of RM275,000.00 which he says were the loans requested by the Defendant to finance the elder care business he was starting:

(a) RM150,000.00 paid by Dr Vigna to one Sonveer Kaur a/p Dharambir Singh;

(b) RM100,000.00 remitted by the Plaintiff to the Defendant as advances; and

(c) RM25,000.00 remitted by Dr Vigna to Nusa Graha Sdn Bhd.

[11] The trial Judge found the evidence to be consistent with the Plaintiff's case that RM150,000.00 was a loan advanced by Dr Vigna to the Defendant as it was a cheque payment to one Sonveer Kaur a/p Dharambir Singh on the Defendant's instructions.

[12] The RM150,000.00 was initially intended to