Fraud claims must be substantiated by evidence; mere allegations of forgery without proof cannot invalidate a transaction. The burden of proof lies with the party making the claim.

Background Facts

[1] This is a case of alleged fraud in a sale and purchase agreement ("SPA") entered into between the Plaintiff Mr Ding with the 1st and 2nd Defendant on 3 September 2018 for the purchase of a terrace unit single story held under GRN 39660 Lot 26112, Mukim Pulai, Daerah Johor Bahru, Johore. The 1st purchase of the house by the 1st and 2nd Defendant (the current "owner" of this property and parties in the original suit) was on 14 September 2007 for a sum of RM170,000.00. The purchase was from the former owner Lau Lan Fah (referred to as "1st SPA") by way of a bank loan obtained from OCBC Bank (see: the SPA of the 1st owner and D1 and D2 in Encl 99 at p 18 pdf).

[2] The story of the sale and purchase between the Plaintiff and D1 and D2 (referred to as "2nd SPA"), between D1 and D2 and the former owner (referred to as the "1st purchase"), the redemption sum of the said property amongst others appeared in bits and pieces all over. These facts must be assembled together to make a complete picture in the conveyancing perspective that is logical and can be comprehended. So, this is the story based on this Court's observations and findings.

[3] D3 was the legal firm who acted for the Plaintiff in the 2nd SPA. The sale was conducted via an agent who was named as the 3rd party in this suit. D3 admitted the 2nd SPA was signed between the Plaintiff with both D1 and D2 on 3 September 2018 and the agreement stamped on the same day. The transfer of the property was then completed on 11 February 2019. Vacant possession to be delivered to the Plaintiff on/before 1 March 2019. At the time of the sale, D1 and D2 said there was a redemption sum of RM21,000.00 unsettled by D1 and D2.

[4] In fact, a sum of RM150,000.00 and RM70,000.00 were paid in cash by the Plaintiff and another RM150,000.00 obtained by loan with AmBank for the purchase (see: Encl 99 at p 42 pdf). D1 and D2 in fact said arising from the arrears, the house was going under auction. With the settlement of the redemption sum, a discharged of charge by OCBC Bank was registered on 11 February 2019 (see: the registration of charge of OCBC and the discharge of charge in the Grant of Title of the said property in Encl 99 at p 27 pdf).

[5] On the admission by D3 that D3 represented the Plaintiff in the 2nd SPA, it would result in the following facts being undisputed. The agreed purchase price was RM370,000.00 with earnest deposit of RM220,000.00 (see: Encl 99 at p 85 the receipt of payment of RM150,000.00 issued by D3 for this sum with RM70,000.00. The sum was paid by the Plaintiff to D3 via his agent the 3rd party). The disputed fact is that the Plaintiff contended that he had paid the sum of RM370,000.00 with deposit of RM110,000.00 to the 1st Defendant but this was denied by D1 and D2. Instead, D1 and D2 had pleaded no knowledge of the 2nd SPA, had neither met with the Plaintiff nor received any payment from the Plaintiff.

The Defence Of D1 and D2

[6] The defence of the 1st and 2nd Defendant in short, is that their signatures on the SPA and form 14A have been forged. Yet, this Court observed that D1 and D2 in their Statement of Defence admitted they were present at D3's office but said to be on the allegation that they were there to receive cash of RM55,000.00 handed by D3's representatives. Surprisingly however, D1 contended that D3's representative had disclosed that R