JUDGMENT

Aliza Sulaiman J:

[1] This was an appeal by the appellant against the decision of the learned Sessions Court Judge ('SCJ') made on 30 July 2024 in dismissing the appellant's claim with costs of RM10,000.00 after a full trial.

[2] After having considered the Record of Appeal and the oral and written submissions by the parties, I found that there were no appealable errors by the SCJ and accordingly, the appeal was dismissed.

[3] Dissatisfied, the appellant is pursuing his right of appeal against my decision. These are my full grounds of judgment for purposes of the appeal.

[4] The parties shall hereinafter be referred to as they were in the Court below.

Background Facts

[5] The Plaintiff and the Defendant are brothers.

[6] On 25 January 1994, they were registered as joint owners of a property held under PM 30 Lot 1701, Mukim Ijok, Daerah Kuala Selangor, Negeri Selangor Darul Ehsan ('Property'). The Plaintiff and the Defendant each owns 1/3 share in the Property and the remaining 1/3 share is owned by Lim Tong Heng ('LTH').

[7] On 2 December 1994, upon the defendant's request, the plaintiff had signed a Revocable Power of Attorney ('PA') without valuable consideration, conferring rights to the defendant to manage and maintain the Property.

[8] On 11 October 2012, the defendant, without the knowledge of the plaintiff and LTH, had used the PA to transfer the plaintiff's share in the Property to himself.

[9] On 4 September 2020, the defendant and LTH entered into a Sale and Purchase Agreement dated 4 September 2020 ('SPA') for the sale of the Property to Santanmas Food Industries Sdn Bhd ('Purchaser') at the purchase price of RM2,700,000.00.

[10] The Property was registered onto the Purchaser on 4 March 2021 upon full purchase price being paid to the defendant and LTH of which 2/3 of the sale proceeds went to the defendant and 1/3 to LTH.

[11] Upon learning that the Property had been sold to the Purchaser, the plaintiff requested from the defendant for the proceeds of the sale which is equivalent of the plaintiff's share in the Property amounting to RM873,000.00 (after deduction of 3% for Real Property Gains Tax), but the defendant refused to pay to the plaintiff.

[12] The Plaintiff conducted a land search and learnt that his share in the Property was transferred and registered to the defendant on 20 August 2015 and thereafter was transferred to the Purchaser.

[13] The Plaintiff then instructed his solicitors to issue a Notice of Demand dated 15 March 2021 to the defendant to demand the sum of RM873,000.00, to which the defendant has failed to respond.

The Legal Principles

[14] All appeals to the High Court shall be by way of re-hearing (see O 55, r 2 of the RC 2012 and s 29 of the Courts of Judicature Act 1964 (Revised 1972) [Act 91]).

[15] In Muhammad Shahir Khalid & Ors v. Ko Kang Min & Anor, this Court set out the law on appellate interference in these words:

"[31] In Nor Azlina Abdul Aziz v. Expert Project Management Sdn Bhd; [2017] 3 MLJ 763; [2017] 5 CLJ 58, the Court of Appeal illuminated on the occasions when appellate interference is warranted in the following passage from the judgment:

"[20]... these occasions have been well set out in numerous cases. Some of these occasions are:

(a) where the trial judge took into account irrelevant considerations and failed to give due weight to relevant considerations (see Director Of Forestry Sabah & Anor v. Mau Kam Tong & Ors And Another Appeal; [2010] 3 MLJ 509; [2010] 3 CLJ 377);

(b) where there was no proper evaluation of the evidence by the trial judge (see Lee Nyan Hon & Brothers Sdn Bhd v. Metro Charm Sdn Bhd; [2009] 6 MLJ 1; [2009] 6 CLJ 626);

(c) where the decision arrived at by the trial Court was without judicial appreciation of the evidence (see Gan Yook Chin & Anor v. Lee Ing Chin & Ors; [2005] 2 MLJ 1; [2004] 4 CLJ 309; [2004] 6 AMR 781);

(d) where a trial Court has so fundamentally misdirected itself, that no reasonable Court which had properly directed itself and aske