A friendly loan agreement is enforceable even if not attested or stamped, provided it can be proven that both parties understood and accepted the terms, distinguishing it from regulated moneylending agreements.

[1]This is a claim emanated from alleged friendly loan made in between the Piaintiff and the Defendant.

[2]After full trial, this court allowed the Plaintiff’s claim in part i.e RM54,851.00. Dissatisfied, the Plaintiff filed an appeal against the court’s decision in not granting the full amount of claim i.e RM 290,000.00.

[3]The relevant cause papers filed and marked in this trial are:

[4]The following documents were also produced by the witnesses during the course of their evidence and marked accordingly:-

[5]The Plaintiff gave evidence on his behalf as PW1 and also called another witness namely Sukhdarshan Singh a/l Bag Singh (PW2) to prove his case.

[6]The Defendant gave evidence on her behalf as DW2 and called other 4 witnesses namely:

(i)Harryade Bin Mohamad Arbe (SD-1), the Assistant manager of the Maybank branch at Maybank Square;

(ii)Jayarajah A/L Thangamani (SD-3), the Defendant’s husband;

(iii)Badrul Hisham Bin Akhriruddin (SD-4), the Maybank Clerk Teller;

(iv)Noorazila Binti Zakaria (SD-5), the Maybank Clerk Teller.

[7]The following are the witness statements that were tendered and marked as evidence during the trial:-

B. Plaintiffs Version

[8]The Plaintiff and the Defendant have entered into an agreement dated 23.03.2017 (hereinafter known as the “Friendly Loan Agreement”) for an amount ofRM260,000.

[9]The plaintiff has provided the loan to the Defendant based on the terms of the agreement.

[10]Accordirig to the Plaintiff, pursuant to the Agreement, the Defendant has agreed to surrender to the Plaintiff a property addressed at No. 46, Jalan Manikavasagam 9A, Taman (hereinafter known as the “property”) as collateral to the loan.

[11]Plaintiff allegad that the loan was then increased to RM290,000 as the Plaintiff had given another RM10,000 and RM20,000 in two separate occasions to the Defendant.

[12]The plaintiff stated that the Defendant has breached the Agreement, where to date, the Defendant still owed an outstanding of RM280,000.00 to the Plaintiff, as follows:

i.RM20,000.00 on or around 17.3.2017;

ii.RM260,000 on or around 24.3.2017;

iii.RM 10,000 on or around 22.3.2017.

[13]Plaintiff contended that when the Defendant was unable to pay the money back, she offered the Plaintiff to purchase the property. Plaintiff agreed and there was an Sale and Purchase Agreement entered where the Defendant received a deposit of RM45, 000 .00 which was equivalent to 10 % of RM450,000.00 [refer to pages 8-29 of the Common Bundle of Documents].

[14]Later the Defendant changed her mind when she informed the Plaintiff that she found a buyer who agreed to purchase the property with a higher price and she proposed to the Plaintiff to let her complete the sale and she will repay the Plaintiff.

[15]Plaintiff then agreed to remove the caveat entered on the property to allow her to proceed with the sale. The Sale and Purchase Agreement was revoked, there was a Deed of Revocation.

[16]Pursuant thereto the Defendant through her solicitor returned the 10% deposit being the deposit sum stated in the Deed of Revocation and the deposit sum as stated in the Sale and Purchase Agreement.

[17]However, after the sale was completed, the Defendant did not pay the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff had given notice to the Defendant to make the payment and after the Defendant has again failed to make any payment, the Plaintiff has instructed his solicitor, Messrs. Pritam Singh & Co. to send a claim dated 23.05.2019, for the amount of RM280,000.00 to the Plaintiff.

[18]Despite receiving the claim, the Defendant allegedly