COURT OF APPEAL PUTRAJAYA
PUBLIC BANK BERHAD – Appellant
Versus
FUNG SHAW YIEW @ JELLFER & ORS AND ANOTHER APPEAL – Respondent
[Civil Appeal Nos: S-01(NCVC)(W)-379-08/2020 & S-01(NCVC)(W)-390-08/2020]
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. dispute over property inheritance (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 2. claims and counterclaims regarding property (Para 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 14) |
| 3. defendants' defenses and arguments (Para 15 , 16 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22) |
| 4. high court's findings in favor of plaintiffs (Para 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28) |
| 5. analysis of evidentiary standards and expert testimony (Para 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 40) |
| 6. court's assessment of circumstantial evidence (Para 41 , 42 , 43 , 44 , 45 , 46 , 47 , 48 , 49 , 50 , 51 , 52 , 53 , 54 , 55 , 56 , 57 , 58 , 59 , 60 , 61 , 62 , 63) |
| 7. court's reasoning on direct evidence (Para 64 , 65 , 66 , 67 , 68 , 69 , 70 , 71 , 72 , 73 , 74 , 75 , 76 , 77 , 78 , 79 , 80 , 81) |
| 8. final judgment and decision on appeals (Para 82 , 83 , 84 , 85 , 86 , 87 , 88 , 89 , 90 , 91) |
A. Introduction
[1] The two Appeals before us concern a claim by two co-beneficiaries ("the Plaintiffs") against another co-beneficiary ("the 1st Defendant of a property left by their deceased father ("the deceased's estate"). The Plaintiffs alleged that the 1st Defendant had unlawfully transferred their collective 2/5th shares (each of the Plaintiffs own 1/5th share) of the deceased's estate's property to her name. It was also alleged that subsequent to the transfer, the 1st Defendant had wrongfully charged the Plaintiffs' shares on the property together with their 1/5th share each on the property to secure a personal loan of RM220,000.00 from the bank ("the 3rd Defendant Bank").
[2] The 2nd Defendant in this action is the Registrar of Titles, Lands and Surveys Department. They were sued as a nominal Defendant for purposes of execution of any consequential orders made by the Court if at the end of the case the Plaintiffs were to succeed in their claim. At the High Court, the learned State Counsel who appeared for the 2nd Defendant had placed on record that they would not be taking part in the trial of the action and would abide by the decision handed down by the Court.
B. Background Facts
[3] For a better understanding of the matter at hand, it is necessary to set out the facts of the case that have led to the present Appeals before us. The Plaintiffs (Fung Shaw Yiew @ Jellfer - 1st Plaintiff) and Fung Siew Fa @ Emily - the 2nd Plaintiff) and the 1st Defendant (Fung Lee Mee @ Jellsie) are siblings. They have two (2) other sisters namely; Fung Lee Lee @ Lily Fung ("Lily") and Fung Siew Yee @ Suzie Fung ("Suzie").
[4] As we have mentioned earlier, the dispute in this matter relates to a property left by the late Fung Sing Wah @ Ah Sing who was the late father of the Plaintiffs, the 1st Defendant as well as Suzie and Lily who were not parties to this suit. Fung Sing Wah @ Ah Sing passed away on 8 November 1991. The property is a double-storey corner commercial shophouse located at Lot 26, Cameron Villa, 3.5 mile, Jalan Penampang situated in the District of Kota Kinabalu and held under Country Lease No 015328471 ("the Property").
[5] By an Order of Succession ("Jadual Tiga") issued by the Mahkamah Anak Negeri Kota Kinabalu under Native Court Case No 192/92 and registered by the Registrar of Titles under Memorial No 10285510, the two Plaintiffs Jellfer and Emily, the 1st Defendant (Jellsie), Lily and Suzie were registered as equal co-owners of 1/5th share each of the Property.
[6] The 3rd Defendant Bank (Public Bank Berhad) is the chargee over the whole of the Property in dispute. The 3rd Defendant Bank was not a party to the dispute between the Plaintiffs and the 1st Defendant, until after conclusion of trial when it was revealed that a charge was subsisting over the Property in favour of the 3rd Defendant Bank.
[7] The learned High Court Judge was of the view that although the Plaintiffs' action was only in respect of their respective 1/5 shares in the Property, since the charge was over the whole of the Property, the rights of the 3rd Defendant Bank were likely to be affected by the outcome of the
Letchumanan Chettiar Alagappan @ L Allagappan & Anor v. Secure Plantation Sdn Bhd
Chin Jhin Thien & Anor v. Chin Huat Yean @ Chin Chun Yean & Anor
Besharapan Sdn Bhd & Ors v. Agroco Plantation Sdn Bhd & Anor
See Leong Chye @ Sze Leong Chye & Anor v. United Overseas Bank (M) Bhd And Another Appeal
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.