JUDGMENT

Noor Hayati Mat J:

Introduction

[1] The 1st Defendant (D1) and 2nd Defendant (D2) filed applications to strike out Plaintiffs' Statement of Claim (SOC) pursuant to O 18 r 19 of the Rules of 2012 (the ROC) as in encls 15 and 16.

[2] Both applications were heard together, and after hearing the parties, I allowed the Defendants' application with costs and the Plaintiffs' case was struck out.

[3] The Plaintiffs have now appealed to the Court of Appeal, and my reasons are below.

Brief Background

[4] The present dispute concerns a piece of land held under the title HSD 238221, No. Lot PT. 4617, Mukim Damansara, in the District of Petaling, Selangor (the property).

[5] The 1st Plaintiff (P1) originally purchased the property in 1989 with the assistance of the 2nd Plaintiff (P2), and with the intention of registering it under P2's name. The instalments for the mortgage, including the deposit, were to be arranged and paid for by P1.

[6] On 23 August 2012, both Plaintiffs executed an irrevocable Power of Attorney (the 1st PA), whereby P2 granted P1 irrevocable powers to deal with and manage the property.

[7] Both parties have agreed that upon discharge of the property from the financier bank, being Alliance Bank Berhad, P2 is required to transfer the said property to P1 or her next of kin.

[8] Subsequent events will be presented in two versions, as both parties have their own narratives of the facts.

Plaintiffs' Version

[9] In December 2014 / 2015, P1 experienced some financial difficulties and required funding for her business. She then met Sathia Seelan a/l P. Arumugam (Sathia Seelan), who is the husband of D1. Sathia Seelan agreed to lend RM50,000.00 with interest and security.

[10] P1 then charged the property to Sathia Seelan and requested that P2 execute several documents to that effect. P1 alleged that she was not aware of or being disclosed the content of the document and was not permitted to read it.

[11] Upon execution of the documents, P1 received a cheque for RM25,000.00 and was informed that the remaining sum of RM25,000.00 had been deducted as legal fees and interest. Sathia Seelan did not furnish copies of the executed documents to both Plaintiffs.

[12] P1 later found out that the property had been transferred to D2 from P2. It was later known that an irrevocable Power of Attorney dated 11 December 2014 (the 2nd PA) had been executed by P2 to D1 as the donee, empowering D1 to transfer and execute all transfer instruments for the said property.

[13] P2, however, states in the Statement of Claim that he denied having executed the 2nd PA to D1, whom he had never met previously.

[14] D2 had satisfied the outstanding loan and discharged the property from Alliance Bank Berhad on or around 21 March 2017.

[15] At the same time, the Plaintiffs had lodged several police reports against D1 and Sathia Seelan; however, no action was taken.

[16] Plaintiffs' claim is now premised on the alleged invalid, wrongful and void transfer of the property from P2 to D2. P1 further alleged that the transfer was tainted with a fraudulent/unlicensed moneylending transaction. Plaintiffs seek a declaration that the 2nd PA was void and unlawful, and subsequently, the transfer to D2 was also void.

[17] P1 states that there was an understanding between P1 and P2 that P2 would hold the property in trust for P1.

[18] P2's claim against the Defendants was to challenge the transfer of ownership of the property from him to D2, as being void and wrongful, tainted with fraud, and arising from an unlicensed moneylending transaction.

Defendants' Version

[19] D1's husband had extended a loan of RM50,000.00 to P1 through a friendly loan agreement without interest, with a repayment instalment of RM2500.00 per month. The alleged loan was paid to P1 in two transactions: one via a cheque for RM25,000.00 and another in cash for RM25,000.00.

[20] In December 2014, P2 met with Sathia Seelan to help redeem the housing loan for the said property, as he was no longer financially capable