JUDGMENT

Arziah Mohamed Apandi JC:

I. Introduction

[1] Both parties lodged the appeals as they both come to this court with the same intention for the reliefs to be granted. They are the immediate family of the mother and son, who both hold a ½ share in the property concerned. The Defendant was a bankrupt up until recently, when he was discharged, and this Originating Summons was filed.

[2] The Plaintiff seeks two principal declarations: first, that the defendant holds his ½ share in property at Grant 80898, Lot 368, s 98, Bandar Kuala Lumpur ("the Property") on trust for her as beneficiary; and second, that she is entitled to the entire sale proceeds of the Property following its sale for RM1,100,000.00 on 29 August 2023. The balance purchase price of RM400,298.33, representing the defendant's ½ share, has been claimed by and released to the Director General of Insolvency ("DGI").

[3] For obvious reasons, the defendant does not oppose the application. Although the DGI submitted written arguments as an interested party, it was not formally included as a party to the proceedings. Having considered all the evidence, reviewed the written submissions, and heard the parties, I dismiss the Originating Summons based on the following.

II. Factual Matrix

[4] The undisputed facts show that the Property was initially owned by the plaintiff's late husband, Yee How @ Yee Hoi Kong. About 40 years ago, the Property was transferred into the joint names of the plaintiff and the defendant, who is the plaintiff's son. The Plaintiff claims. that this transfer was made with the understanding that the defendant would hold his ½ share in trust for her. A trust deed was supposedly signed to document this arrangement, but it has since allegedly been lost due to the passage of time.

[5] On 9 January 2013, the defendant was adjudicated bankrupt by the Shah Alam High court pursuant to a petition by United Overseas Bank (M) Berhad in bankruptcy case No 29-7726-2011. According to the DGI's records, the defendant attended the DGI's office for an initial interview on 1 September 2016. During this Statement of Affairs interview, the defendant declared that he owned no assets. No mention was made of the Property or any trust arrangement at that time.

[6] On 29 May 2023, the DGI received an application from the defendant seeking consent to sell the Property. The DGI's letter dated 6 June 2023 responded to this application, noting that the Property was charged to Public Bank Berhad and stating that the lot "tidak terletak hak kepada Ketua Pengarah Insolvensi (KPI) selaras dengan peruntukan subsection 8(2) Akta Insolvensi 1967 [Akta 360] dan Bab 3, Bahagian 16, Kanun Tanah Negara 1965." The DGI required the chargee, Public Bank, to have the authority to receive monthly instalments or produce the proceeds, and stipulated that if property proceeds were generated, these should be handed over to the DGI in accordance with s 8(2A) of the Insolvency Act 1967 (IA 1967), noting that if the charge holder failed to do so, they would be committing an offence under s 115(3) IA 1967.

[7] The respective pieces of legislation are the following:

"Effect of bankruptcy order.

8. (1) On the making of a bankruptcy order:

(a) except as provided by this Act, no creditor to whom the bankrupt is indebted in respect of any debt provable in bankruptcy shall have any remedy against the property or person of the bankrupt in respect of the debt, or shall proceed with or commence any action or other legal proceeding in respect of such debt unless with the leave of the court and on such terms as the court may impose; and

(b) all the property of the bankrupt shall become divisible among his creditors and shall vest in the Director General of Insolvency and the Director General of Insolvency shall be the receiver, manager, administrator and trustee of all properties of the bankrupt.

(2) This section shall not affect the power of any secured creditor to realize or otherwise deal with his security in the same ma