Hernam Singh A/l Karam Singh v Ranjeet Singh A/l Bakshish Singh (BA-22NCvC-376-09/2021)

HERNAM SINGH A/L KARAM SINGH … PLAINTIFFS [NRIC NO.: 390131-02-5037]

BALJIT KAUR A/P GURDIT SINGH [NRIC NO.: 530927-08-5416]

RANJEET SINGH A/L BAKSHISH SINGH … DEFENDANTS [NRIC NO.: 710504-14-5403]

RAJENDAR KAUR A/P PRITAM SINGH [NRIC N.:730214-08-5076] AND RABINDAR KAUR A/P AMRIK SINGH … INTERVENER [NRIC NO.: 740418-08-5480] GROUNDS OF JUDGMENT Introduction 1. This case concerns the relationship among a mother, a stepfather, and his stepson, involving allegations of misappropriation of funds, deception, and abuse of trust, all of which were comprehensively examined during the trial proceedings. 13/04/2026 14:35:27 BA-22NCvC-376-09/2021 Kand. 277

The Court dismissed both the main suit and the counterclaim, with costs awarded.

Hence, the aggrieved parties initiate the appeal process. Background Facts

The plaintiffs and the first defendant resided in a low-cost apartment in Bandar Sunway, Selangor Darul Ehsan, circa 1991. The flat was jointly owned by the plaintiffs.

Subsequently, in 1991, the plaintiffs and the first defendant purportedly purchased a double-storey residence in Bandar Sunway, Selangor. They took occupancy of the residence in 1993. Thereafter, they relocated once more to Kota Kemuning in 2014.

It is the plaintiffs’ case that, throughout these years, they trusted the first defendant and placed the management of their properties and financial affairs entirely in his hands.

The family, which was once harmonious and joyful, deteriorated into a state characterized by disputes in the year 2020. The plaintiffs hereby assert the following claims against the defendants.

7.1 The first defendant is alleged to have misappropriated funds totalling RM620,000.00, derived from the 2014 sale of a parcel of land belonging to the first plaintiff’s late mother, of which the first plaintiff is one of the beneficiaries. According to the first plaintiff, the first defendant told him that he had spent all the money.

7.2 The transfer of the low-cost apartment to the second defendant. The plaintiffs allege that they never consented to the transfer of the property.

7.3 Non-delivery of gold items stored in the bank's safe deposit box by the first defendant.

7.4 The double-storey house in Bandar Sunway is mortgaged to Standard Chartered Bank Bhd without the plaintiffs’ knowledge.

7.5 The acquisition and transactions relating to two BMW vehicles were allegedly carried out by the first defendant without the second plaintiff's consent, resulting in the rejection of her “Bantuan Sara Hidup" application.

All the aforementioned claims are denied by the defendants. Issues to be Tried 9. Whether the first defendant has misused the proceeds of the sale of the estate land.

Whether the defendants engaged in the fraudulent transfer of the low-cost apartment to the second defendant’s name.

Whether the first defendant committed the tort of conversion by failing to return the second plaintiff’s jewellery.

Whether the first defendant engaged in fraudulent refinancing of the double-storey residence located in Bandar Sunway.

Whether the first defendant had fraudulently caused the purchase of two BMW cars in the name of the second plaintiff.

Whether the plaintiffs hold their respective shares in the double-storey house on trust for the first defendant, and whether the first defendant is required to pay the plaintiffs two-thirds of the rental income collected from the house in Bandar Sunway. Decision of this Court 15. Regarding the first issue, the first plaintiff asserted that he appointed the first defendant, together with other beneficiaries, to oversee the sale of a parcel of land owned by his late mother.

The first plaintiff claimed that he had executed a Power of Attorney in favour of the first defendant, authorising the first defendant to act on the first plaintiff's behalf in relation to the sale of the parcel of land.

The first plaintiff alleges that the entitlement of RM620,000.00 was entrusted to the first defendant for deposit into a CIMB account; however, the first defendant is alleged to have misappropriated the funds. It is further alleged that he committed a breach of trust.

Having examined the factual evidence, it is clear that no Power of Attorney has been presented to this Court. Furthermore, this Court finds that the first defendant has been designated to oversee the sale of the property and to receive the proceeds.

He was handling funds belonging to the first plaintiff and to an individual named Gurnam. All the plaintiffs assert that the first defendant misappropriated the funds. There is no factual evidence before this Court to substantiate the essential fact that the monies were deposited by the first defendant into the CIMB account. To the plaintiffs' disadvantage, the second plaintiff stated that a Maybank account was opened for the trust money. The plaintiffs' counsel contended that this was a minor factual mistake made by the first plaintiff. Surprisingly, this was not rectified during re-examination. However, the monies in question were deposited into a Maybank account, which was never produced in Court.

After evaluating the evidence presented by both parties, the Court finds the plaintiffs’ claim that they transferred RM620,000.00 to the first defendant to be unsubstantiated. They have failed to demonstrate that the first defendant misappropriated their funds. No CIMB Bank staff were called to testify on this critical matter, which would have provided the Court with an accurate understanding of the facts. The plaintiffs’ account of events is fraught with uncertainty about the essential truth of what actually transpired.

In fact, what was presented before this Court was evidence of monies withdrawn from account number 50037515430003, not from the CIMB account number 5003756586, as alleged. Furthermore, the withdrawal was made on 28 February 2017, not on 7 October 2016, as claimed.

The second plaintiff has also testified that the alleged funds were used for her son Balbir’s wedding. Therefore, the evidence before this Court is fraught with uncertainty, and the plaintiffs have failed to discharge their burden of proof on the balance of probabilities.

There are material contradictions and inconsistencies in the plaintiffs' evidence before this Court that go to the root of the issue and have created doubts about the truthfulness of their assertions.

The plaintiffs' assertion that a settlement was reached for payment of the said sum by way of a deed of settlement is not proven before this Court. There is no deed of settlement signed by the defendants.

In regard to the second issue, the plaintiffs contended that the defendants had fraudulently transferred the low-cost flat to the second defendant without their consent or knowledge.

However, the second defendant maintained that the plaintiffs had sold the low-cost flat to her. In response, the plaintiffs assert that their signatures were fraudulently obtained because they were illiterate. They further allege that they were misled about the nature of the document when it was presented to them.

Firstly, the plaintiffs are unsure about their understanding of this issue because they give two reasons for the execution of the sale and purchase agreement. They contend that their signatures were forged and that they signed the document without understanding its contents. The Court is burdened with determining which version of the facts they are actually relying upon.

Before this Court is a sale and purchase agreement, duly signed in the presence of a lawyer who gave evidence in Court. The balance of RM72,000.00 was paid to the second plaintiff by cheque No.

The attesting lawyer confirmed that the sale and purchase agreement was explained to the second plaintiff in simple Malay to ensure she understood the nature of the document she was signing. The plaintiff’s argument that the second defendant holds her ATM bank card is unsubstantiated by evidence.

Therefore, upon reevaluating the facts, this Court finds it inherently challenging to accept the position adopted by the plaintiffs concerning forgery and fraudulent conduct by the second defendant. Such a stance cannot be sustained, as these matters involve distinct elements to be considered, and the plaintiffs' simultaneous assertions tend to complicate the trial process.

What remains before this Court is the evidence that the low-cost flat was transferred to the second defendant for consideration. There is no evidence of forgery, nor is there evidence on the balance of probabilities to prove that a fraudulent act has been committed against the second plaintiff by the second defendant.

The plaintiffs' counsel repeatedly reminded the Court to observe the defendants' demeanour. It is not unusual for people to forget things here and there when testifying in Court, provided it does not go to the root of the matter.

Regarding the jewellery issue, the second plaintiff contended that she jointly hired a safe deposit box at UOB Bank with the first defendant, in which she kept her gold jewellery. The first defendant is alleged to have failed to return the second plaintiff’s gold jewellery. Her daughter-in-law, Rina Kaur, corroborated the details of the gold jewellery previously narrated by the second plaintiff.

The evidence before this Court is that a safe deposit box was jointly registered in the names of the first defendant, the intervener and the second plaintiff. The purpose of the safe deposit box was to provide safekeeping.

Following an injunction order obtained by the plaintiffs, the safe deposit was opened by Court Officials in the presence of the lawyers, and no jewellery was found. This only goes to prove that any jewellery once in the safe box has been returned to the second plaintiff, as observed by the Court in the second plaintiff’s testimony during cross-examination (see page 22, notes of evidence).

Moreover, the plaintiffs failed to produce any receipts in Court as evidence that they purchased the jewellery.

Rina Kaur testified that certain pieces of jewellery were pawned. However, the second plaintiff failed to produce any evidence that these items had been redeemed. There is no cogent evidence before this Court that the listed pieces of jewellery existed as alleged by the second plaintiff.

Having considered the evidence before this Court, it is ruled that the plaintiffs failed, on the balance of probabilities, to prove that the said jewellery, of the value and description, existed.

The next issue relates to refinancing the double-storey house. The plaintiffs argue that the first defendant refinanced the property without their permission. They state that they are illiterate and cannot read Malay or English, and that the first defendant misled them about the nature of the documents.

It is an undisputed fact that the double-storey house has been refinanced from Maybank Finance to Standard Chartered Bank. It is also an undisputed fact that Maybank Finance took legal action against the borrowers and the guarantor for RM129,037.75, the amount owed. The fact that the refinancing scheme was carried out to rescue the property from being auctioned and to remove the guarantor, Piara Singh, from liability is a non-issue.

It is obvious from the facts before this Court that the only matter of grave interest to the second plaintiff is that the first defendant did not pay the excess arising from the refinancing scheme.

Upon scrutinising the facts pertaining to this issue, it is evident that the signing of the charge documents for the refinancing was carried out before a Punjabi lawyer, Ms Hardheal Kaur. Although the second plaintiff is illiterate, that fact doesn’t prove she was unaware of or did not understand the nature of the documents she was signing, as they must have been explained to her by the lawyer. The plaintiffs have not proved otherwise.

There is also no evidence before this Court as to how the first defendant misrepresented the documents to the second plaintiff when she signed the charge documents. The failure to testify as to what the misrepresentations were, and the absence of any evidence of deception or improper conduct by the lawyer handling the documentation process, make this issue untenable. The case of Thong Guan (PTE) LT v Lam Kong Co Ltd (N0 2) [1998] 3 CLJ 964 is referred to.

The matter concerns the allegation that the first defendant purchased two BMW vehicles registered in the name of the second plaintiff without her knowledge. Her illiteracy is her defence. Accordingly, the first defendant is requested to indemnify her against all claims or damages relating to the vehicles.

Before this Court, an officer from JPJ testified that the transfer of the car WCN 1771 was effected by a formal transfer, whereas the transfer of WMF 8986 was effected through JPJ’s biometric verification system. This evidence is unchallenged and irrelevant to the allegations raised by the second plaintiff against the first defendant. The second plaintiff’s allegation is purely conjectural and illogical.

As far as the evidence produced before this Court, the car WCN1771 has been scrapped, whereas WMF was reported as stolen.

The final issue concerns the counter-claim filed by the first defendant, in which he alleges that the plaintiffs hold 2/3 of their shares in the double-storey house on a resulting trust.

In order to prove the counter-claim, the first defendant must prove that he paid for the double-storey house and that the parties intended the plaintiffs to hold their shares on trust for him.

On the evidence before this Court, it is clear that the plaintiffs paid the deposit for the purchase of the double-storey house. There is also evidence that they contributed to servicing the monthly instalments by using the rental income from the low-cost flat and the double-storey house.

The fact that the first defendant never paid the deposit for the double-storey house remains unchallenged. Therefore, this Court disbelieves his factual evidence to the contrary.

The plaintiff’s payment of the deposit is sufficient to discredit the first defendant’s claim to a resulting trust. The Court of Appeal decision in Abdul Karim v Tahir bin Yaacob [2004] 4 MLJ 373 is relevant. The first defendant’s assertion is also unsupported by any documentary evidence.

The first defendant failed to prove his counter-claim on the balance of probabilities, and the counter-claim was dismissed with costs.

As for the 2/3 rental claims by the plaintiffs, no proper evidence was adduced to prove that the double-storey house was rented out at the material time in issue. Accordingly, the claim fails. Conclusion 53. This Court is of the opinion that the entire case is replete with inconsistent and irregular facts, which have led this Court to fail to make findings of fact that the plaintiffs and the first defendant have proved their case on the balance of probabilities.

Therefore, this is a suitable and appropriate case for dismissal with costs. Dated: 13th April 2026 (INDRA NEHRU SAVANDIAH) Judge High Court of Malaya Shah Alam Decision: 30th January 2026 Counsels: For the Plaintiffs : Ng Chia How & Juan Sing Ru Messrs Chia Koay & Teng For the Defendants : Pramjit Kaur Messrs Mann & Associates