Mohanambal A/p Suppiah v LEE LEONG TECK (BA-22NCvC-240-06/2021)

The Plaintiff is now challenging the Consent Judgment because TKP lacked the authority to record it, or that it was recorded beyond the SCA 1948 The Plaintiff also impugned these documents Impugned Documents : SPA; Form CKHT 1A (Cukai Keuntungan Harta Tanah) dated 18 CKHT 1A ; Form CKHT 2A (Cukai Keuntungan Harta Tanah) dated 18 CKHT 2A ; Form CKHT 3 (Cukai Keuntungan Harta Tanah) dated 18 CKHT 3 ; Tenancy Agreement Memorandum of Transfer (Form 14A of the National Land Code MOT on the basis that they were sham documents intended to disguise the The Deceased agreed to sell the Residential Property to the First Defendant for a valuable consideration of RM124,000.00 and signed all related documents on 18 December 2017 at the Fourth office. The First Defendant later agreed to rent the Residential Property to the Deceased for RM800 per month for one year from 1 January 2018 to 31 December 2018. of the Residential Property Bandar Baru Bangi Civil Suit. On 8 August 2019, the Deceased and the First Defendant recorded the Consent Judgment. Mugilan (PW3), to purchase the Residential Property for a valuable consideration of RM190,000.00 and paid a 10% deposit to the First Defendant. However, s sale-and-purchase agreement collapsed because PW3 failed to secure financing from a bank.

The main issue here is whether the Impugned Documents are sham,

I will be guided by the decisions of the Court of Appeal in Global Property (Melawati) Sdn Bhd v Jangka Prestasi Sdn Bhd [2020] 5 MLRA 140; Mahmood Ooyub v Li Chee Loong & Other Appeals [2021] 1 MLRA 609; [2020] 6

Since the Plaintiff pleads fraud, the burden of proof on a balance of probabilities is placed on the Plaintiff (Sinnayaah & Sons Sdn Bhd v Damai Setia Sdn Bhd [2015] 5 MLJ 1; [2015] 5 MLRA 191, FC; Teoh Kiang Hong v Theow Say Kow @ Teoh Kiang Seng, Henry & Other Appeals [2025] 2 MLRA 504, FC).

Regarding fraud, I will set forth below the suspicious and unusual features related to the Impugned Documents.

The Deceased and the First Defendant never met, neither before nor after signing the Impugned Documents.

There was also no discussion about the sale of the Residential Property before the Impugned Documents were signed by the Deceased.

No estate agents were appointed by the Deceased or First Defendant to help with the sale of the Residential Property, as they never discussed or met before signing the Impugned Documents.

The First Defendant neither inspected the Residential Property nor provided any explanation for how he discovered it or for his agreement to purchase it without viewing.

According to Clauses 1 and 2 of the SPA, the First Defendant had already paid 10% deposit of RM12,400.00, and the balance purchase price of RM111,600.00 was to be paid by the First Defendant by 18 March 2018.

During cross-examination, the Second Defendant gave inconsistent and contradictory testimony regarding the SPA he prepared: Is it true that the purchaser paid the full purchase price on the first day? Is it true? Yes What was the full purchase price he paid? Thousand. Then why you need to have S&P when mention that in S&P I did not mention that in the S&P because Okay You agree that you did not mention in the S&P that he has paid the full purchase price? Not in the S&P Correct? Correct.

ny for the following reasons: under Clause 1 of the SPA, the First Defendant was alleged to have paid the 10% deposit of RM12,400.00 to the Deceased, but the First Defendant did not adduce any evidence of this payment;

under Clause 2 of the SPA, the 90% balance of the purchase price, amounting to RM111,600.00, was due for payment by 18 March 2018, but the First Defendant did not adduce any evidence of this payment;

in cross-examination, the Second Defendant stated that the First Defendant paid the full sum of RM124,000.00 to the Deceased on the day the SPA was signed but did not provide any evidence to support his statement;

in this case, there are only two undated third-party cheques totalling RM96,600.00 adduced as evidence;

there is no evidence adduced to show that, after considering the two third-party cheques of RM96,600.00, the First Defendant paid the remaining balance of RM27,400.00 of the purchase price to the Deceased;

alternatively, even if the 10% deposit were paid and considering the two payments of RM96,600.00 made via third-party cheques, the Deceased would only receive RM109,000.00, leaving a shortfall of RM15,000.00. Once again, no evidence was adduced to prove that the First Defendant paid this RM15,000.00 to the Deceased;

under Preamble (5) of the SPA, the First Defendant was required to apply for a financing facility and settle the balance purchase price by 18 March 2018. However, no evidence of such an application was adduced;

statement during cross-examination that the First Defendant paid the entire purchase price of RM124,000.00 to the Deceased.

earned RM2,500.00 per month with RM10,000.00 in commissions, while being employed at a mobile shop before 2022, and to have paid taxes. However, he did not provide any supporting documents, such as offer letters, salary slips, or tax receipts;

no evidence was adduced regarding his employment at Asia

there was no evidence to prove that the First Defendant had RM124,000.00 in his bank account at the time the SPA was signed;

although he controlled his bank account, the First Defendant did not produce his bank statement to prove that he had RM124,000.00 to pay the Deceased;

if the bank statement had been produced, it would have been unfavourable to him;

therefore, an adverse inference under Section 114(g) of the Evidence Act 1950 should be drawn against the First Defendant.

The Second Defendant claimed that he met the Deceased, the , and Mugilan a/l Subramaniam (PW3) at his office on 18 December 2017.

This cannot be true because only the Deceased and PW2 went to the

The Plaintiff and PW3 did not accompany the Deceased to the Fourth

In fact, PW2 was not present when the Deceased signed the Impugned Documents.

PW2 only arrived after the Deceased had already signed the Impugned Documents. suami Datin, siapa lagi yang ada hadir? PW1 : Suami saya dengan bapa saya saja yang hadir. Saya tak hadir kat sana. masa itu? Tak ada peguam dekat sana. Cuma Madam Loke.

Madam Loke is a material witness who can explain what happened when the Deceased signed the Impugned Documents at the Fourth office on 18 December 2017.

However, the Defendants chose not to call Madam Loke as a witness.

The Defendants also did not explain absence, despite their counterclaim seeking a declaration that the First Defendant is the legitimate proprietor of the Residential Property.

If called, Madam Loke would give evidence unfavourable to the Defendants ( ).

Therefore, an adverse inference should be drawn against the Defendants for failing to bring Madam Loke to Court to testify (Section 114(g) of the Evidence Act 1950)

Evidence from PW1 and PW2 showed that the Deceased could not read documents written in English and that neither the Second Defendant, any solicitors at office, nor Madam Loke explained to the Deceased the nature and implications of signing the Impugned D Property.

After PW2 was not allowed to peruse the Impugned Documents signed by the Deceased. Terima kasih Dato sebab memberikan satu penjelasan yang sangat detail. So saya teruskan. kata mereka sudah mula menandatangan. So dokumen-dokumen tersebut, Dato menelitikan kandungan-kandungan. Betul ke, saya baca.

After PW2 Impugned Documents was denied, Madam Loke told him that the Impugned Documents were intended only for the loan.

menghadiri ke firma guaman D4 bersama Encik Suppiah Yes. Saya ada ikut dengan dia. Tetapi semasa saya masa tu dia dah 70 lebih so I drop him and then I went to park the car. The parking is a very problem there. So I pergi parking I punya kereta, by then dia sign. Before I already park the car, dia already sign. am Loke. here. Is just a formality to sign to borrow money. . no . They ask me like that. Okay? They said you want money, you just sign. chance to read the whole paragraph and what they are doing.

Apart from no explanation provided to the Deceased regarding the Impugned Documents, the First, Second and Fourth Defendants also failed to provide copies of the duly signed Impugned Documents to the Deceased.

company, Gadget Mate, was unfounded and unsupported by official company search evidence showing he wholly owns Gadget Mate.

46.

There was a conflict of interest involving the Second and Fourth Defendants in representing the Deceased and the First Defendant.

The Second and Fourth Defendants drafted and prepared the Impugned Documents and should have advised the Deceased to seek advice from another solicitor before signing them. This was not done.

The Deceased did not sign any letter authorising the Second and Fourth Defendants to act on his behalf for any transaction.

The Deceased also did not sign a letter waiving his right to obtain advice from another solicitor.

The Residential Property was bought for RM124,000.00, below the market value of RM220,000.00, a fact admitted by the First Defendant with no explanation for the undervaluation.

Under the SPA, the transfer should have occurred in April 2018, after the 3-month completion period, but in this case, it was completed only on 1 February 2019, nearly a year later.

No explanation was provided for the inordinate delay, despite the First Defendant allegedly paying the full purchase price on the day the SPA was signed.

The First Defendant would have asked the Deceased to deliver vacant possession of the Residential Property within 3 days upon full payment of the purchase price, as per Clause 10 of the SPA.

As mentioned earlier, according to the Second Defendant, the First Defendant allegedly paid the full purchase price on the day the SPA was signed, but no request under the SPA was made for the First Defendant to deliver vacant possession of the Residential Property.

Instead, the First Defendant transferred the Residential Property to himself on 1 February 2019, demanded outstanding rent under the Tenancy Agreement in March 2019, commenced the Bandar Baru Bangi Civil Suit in April 2019 for breach of the Tenancy Agreement, recorded the Consent Judgment in August 2019, and filed a Writ of Possession in August 2020 based on the Tenancy Agreement to obtain vacant possession of the Residential Property.

The Tenancy Agreement was a sham document and was utilised to conceal illegal moneylending for the following reasons:

the Deceased remained the registered proprietor of the Residential Property until 31 January 2019;

the Tenancy Agreement was also dated prior to the Residential Property being

the Tenancy Agreement s signing date of 9 January 2018 cannot be valid, as the Deceased only visited the Fourth office once on 18 December 2017;

the Deceased never met or discussed the Tenancy Agreement with the First Defendant;

the Deceased also never met the Second Defendant, yet the Tenancy Agreement was purportedly signed in his presence;

no letter of demand was issued between February 2018 and January 2019, despite the claims that rent was unpaid since

only one letter was sent in March 2019, three months after the Tenancy Agreement expired, and after rent was allegedly unpaid for 13 consecutive months;

the Tenancy Agreement required payment of RM800.00 as the Security Deposit and RM1,600.00 as the Utility Deposit upon signing. There is no evidence that the Deceased paid these deposits. No demand letters were issued for non-payment of these deposits; and

the First Defendant delayed for over 13 months before initiating the Bandar Baru Bangi Civil Suit.

The disposal date in CKHT 1A, 2A, and CKHT 3 was 18 December 2017.

However, no explanation was provided by the First, Second, and Fourth Defendants for the inordinate delay in submitting these forms IRB over a year later.

60.

The Defendants did not dispute the contents of the Statutory Declaration, which referred to the words loan and overdraft .

sham, designed to conceal the moneylending.

Before the sale and purchase of the Residential Property by PW3 collapsed, he was informed that the difference between the loan amount of RM120,000.00 and the sale price of RM190,000.00 was due to RM70,000.00 in interest charged by the First Defendant. Dan satu lagi ditanya, kamu sendiri tidak terlibat dalam urusan jual beli di antara datuk kamu dengan Defendan Pertama ya. Defendan Pertama, Lee Leong Teck. Kamu tidak terlibat ya? terlibat dengan urusan jual beli di antara datuk kamu dengan Defendan Pertama, kamu tidak terlibat. Ya? Boleh kamu jelaskan mengapa kamu tidak terlibat pada masa itu? PW3 : Okay. Sebenarnya benda ni saya dapat tahu bila nama rumah hartamilik atuk saya sudah tukar sebagai keluarga, kita bincang, lepas tu saya nak membeli hakmilik harta atuk saya. So masa tu bila kita approach peguam Lee Leong Teck tu, and then masa tu dia telah charge bunga atau interest sebanyak 70K. 70K add on to whatever atuk saya yang mengambil daripada dia. sebab yang tu memang satu-satu harta pusaka atuk ada choice yang lain. Tu kitaorang pun bayar dulu 10% daripada jumlah tu. Sebanyak 19K. untuk loan untuk rumah tersebut. Tapi tak cukup bukan saya sendirilah. Saya pun tak pernah nampak dia. So bila ibubapa saya cuba and then last-last kita dapat tahu rumah tu dah tak ada dah.

Under the Consent Judgment, the Deceased was supposed to pay RM190,000.00 to purchase the Property from the First Defendant.

Under the Consent Judgment, if the Deceased or his nominees paid the sum of RM190,000.00, the First Defendant would not only recover the RM96,600.00 loan but also receive an additional sum of RM93,400.00 from the Deceased (RM190,000.00- RM96,600.00=RM93,400.00)

This sum of RM93,400.00 is approximately 96.68% of the RM96,600.00 loan given to the Deceased.

If the Impugned Documents were genuine, there should be written confirmation from the Second and Fourth Defendants to the Deceased about the transfer of the Residential Property to the First Defendant, but no such evidence exists.

The Deceased only learned about the transfer of the Residential Property to the First Defendant when the First Defendant sued him in the Bandar Baru Bangi Civil Suit for unpaid rent and vacant possession.

Another interesting point is the anomaly in the land search reports issued by the Pejabat Tanah Dan Galian Negeri Selangor.

The official land search dated 8 October 2025 shows that the Residential Property was transferred from the Deceased to the First Defendant.

However, an earlier private land search dated 1 October 2025, made via presentation no.: 00CS209822/2025, did not mention anything about the transfer of the Residential Property by the Deceased to the First Defendant.

72.

73.

During cross-examination, the Second Defendant stated that the sum of was related to the sale of the property by the First Defendant to Atikurrahman Bin Musfata, the existing registered proprietor of the Residential Property. So do you agree that this property was sold to En. Atikurrahman for RM260,000.00? Yes And if you look at because of selling to En. Atikurrahman, he has to pay RPGT, Real Property Gains Tax of almost RM23,403.87. Yes.

Again, I do not believe the Second Defendant s testimony because:

the IRB notice was issued concerning a sale and purchase agreement between the First Defendant and an unknown third party that took place in 2019.

the sale of the Residential Property by the First Defendant to Atikurrahman Bin Musfata took place only in June 2022; and

IRB issued the notice more than 7 months before Atikurrahman became the new proprietor of the property on 26 July 2022.

The Second Defendant has once more misled the Court.

The First Defendant did not prove a genuine intent to comply with the SPA terms, including payment, deadlines, and procedural steps typical of a bona fide sale.

No credible evidence was provided by the First, Second, and Fourth Defendants to establish the legitimacy of the Impugned Documents.

In other words, the First, Second, and Fourth Defendants failed to prove that the Impugned Documents represented a genuine sale and purchase transaction.

To the contrary, as shown in the suspicious and unusual features above, the First, Second, and Fourth Defendants have defrauded the Deceased, causing him to lose his Residential Property to the First Defendant, Atikurrahman Bin Musfata, and CIMB Islamic Bank (AG Securities v. Vaughan & Ors [1990] 1 AC 417; Letchumanan Chettiar Allagappan & Anor v. Secure Plantation Sdn Bhd [2017] 5 CLJ 418; [2017] 3 MLRA 501; [2017] 4 MLJ 697, FC; Yeo Ping Tieng & Ors v. Elitprop Sdn Bhd [2019] 6 MLRA 616; [2020] 3 MLJ 269; [2020] 1 CLJ 776, FC; Yee Poh Nyen v. Raji Kasan & Ors [2018] MLRAU 293; [2018] CLJU 1185, CA; [2018] 1 MLJU 1108; Global Globe Property (Melawati) Sdn Bhd v. Jangka Prestasi Sdn Bhd [2020] 5 MLRA 140; [2020] 6 MLJ 333; [2020] 6 CLJ 1, CA; Mahmood Ooyub v. Li Chee Loong & Other Appeals [2020] CLJU 660; [2020] 6 MLJ 755; [2021] 1 MLRA 609, CA).

First Defendant is not a bona fide purchaser, as the Impugned Documents were essentially a façade, appearing to be a sale and purchase of the Residential Property but in fact concealing illegal moneylending (T Sivam a/l Tharamalingam (Sebagai Wakil/Pentadbir Kepada Harta Pusaka Mendiang Nagamuthu a/l Perisamy) v. Public Bank Berhad [2018] 4 AMR 321, FC).

The undisputed value of the Residential Property at the time it was transferred to the First Defendant was RM220,000.00, yet it was purportedly sold to the First Defendant for only RM124,000.00.

There is a difference of RM96,000.00 and the purchase price of the Residential Property.

Since the Deceased only received RM96,600.00 and not the full value of the Residential Property, the First Defendant had indeed charged the Plaintiff an interest of RM123,400.00. Valuation - RM 96,600.00 Loan Disbursed =========== Interest Charged ===========

The First, Second, and Fourth Defendants used the RM123,400.00 amount as the purchase price for the Residential Property in the SPA, but only released RM96,600.00 to the First Defendant.

86.

87.

and void under Section 24(a), (b) and (e) of the Contracts Act 1950 (Mahmood Ooyub v. Li Chee Loong & Other Appeals [2021] 1 MLRA 609; [2020] 6 MLJ 755; [2020] CLJU 660, CA, Triple Zest Trading & Suppliers & Ors v. Applied Business Technologies Sdn Bhd CLJ 187, FC and Detik Ria Sdn Bhd v. Prudential Corporation Holdings Limited & Anor [2025] 3 MLRA 544; [2025] 3 MLJ 22; ; AHT Syngas Technology NV v. Future NRG Sdn Bhd [2025] MLRHU 2934).

Issue No. 2:

90.

Merong Mahawangsa Sdn Bhd & Anor v. of illegality, whether ex facie or which later appears, even though not pleaded, and to refuse to enforce the contract. At the outset we must say that the trial courts must be vigilant not to provide any relief on contracts which is void on the grounds of public policy, or illegality, whether or not it is the pleaded case of the parties or whether the issue was raised during the trial [Emphasis added]

ex turpi causa non oritur actio. Even if he had no knowledge of the illegality, the arrangement being intrinsically and inevitably illegal, the law gives him no allowance for innocence so far as consequences are concerned. Waugh v. Morris [1873] LR 8 QB 202 JM Allan Merchandising Ltd v. Cloke & Anor [1963] 2 QB 340 On the other hand the appellant is entitled to rely upon illegality in his defence in order to meet the respondent's claim. The reason why the law allows the appellant to do so, as explained by Lord Mansfield in Holman v. Johnson [1775] 1 Cowp 341 343 98 ER 1120, 1121 is due to the general principle of public policy contained in the maxim ex dolo malo non oritur actio. The court will not assist a person to pursue his claim if it arises ex turpis and when the defendant is equally at fault the court will apply the maxim potior est conditio defendentis. The learned trial judge therefore, should have dismissed the [Emphasis added] (See also Lee Nyan Hon &Brothers Sdn Bhd v. Metro Charm Sdn Bhd [2009] 2 MLRA 593; [2009] 6 MLJ 1; [2009] 6 MLJ 450; [2009] 6 CLJ 626; [2010] 1 AMR 501)

93.

94.

MA Joseph Capital Sdn Bhd v. Pannirselvam Mannar & Ors And Other Appeals [2025] MLRAU 327, CA (See paragraphs [103]-[117]) whereby Ahmad Fairuz Zainol Abidin JCA, in delivering the decision of the Court of Appeal, had this to say: [116] The duty of compliance with the licensing requirements under the Moneylenders Act 1951 is placed squarely upon the lender, not the borrower. The Other Respondents, as alleged unlicensed moneylenders, bore the primary responsibility for ensuring compliance with the statutory scheme. [117] Following Kiriri Cotton and PJD Regency, this Court holds that the Appellant, being a member of the class protected by the Moneylenders Act 1951, is not in pari delicto with the Other Respondents and is therefore entitled to seek relief despite the alleged illegality of the transactions [Emphasis added] )

96.

This case demonstrates that all transactions were sham transactions, with the Deceased as the weaker party.

He had no choice but to sign the documents without understanding their nature or consequences to get the loan.

Under the circumstances, I am of the view that the of ex turpi causa non oritur actio and pari delicto do not apply to the Deceased/Plaintiff.

The that the Consent Judgment should be set aside, as there was no instruction from the Deceased to agree to and record it, had no basis for the following reasons: of the next date, 9 August 2019, fixed for the parties

If the Deceased had not instructed TKP to agree and record the Consent Judgment, the Plaintiff should have named TKP in this civil suit or initiated a separate civil suit against TKP.

The Plaintiff did not do so.

The Plaintiff also chose not to call TKP to testify.

Adverse inference should also be drawn against the Plaintiff, whereby if TKP testified, they would not only give unfavourable evidence but confirm that there were instructions by the Deceased to record the Consent Judgment.

That said, I am aware of my earlier findings concerning sham transactions related to the Impugned Documents, particularly the Tenancy Agreement.

In this case, the First Defendant commenced the Bandar Baru Bangi Civil Suit based on the sham Tenancy Agreement.

For that reason, and pursuant to established legal principles such as in Badiaddin Mohd Mahidin & Anor v Arab Malaysian Finance Bhd [1998] 1 MLRA 183, the Consent Judgment is hereby set aside due to the First, Second and Fourth Defendant s involvement in sham transactions.

Apart from the above, the Consent Judgement ought to be set aside for the following reasons:

when the First Defendant purportedly rented out the Residential Property to the Deceased for 1 year from 1 January 2018, he was not yet the registered proprietor of the Residential Property because he only became the registered proprietor on 1 February 2019, which was one year later;

the First Defendant only became the registered proprietor of the Residential Property after the expiry of the Tenancy Agreement; and

RM100,000.00, as provided in Section 90 of the SCA 1948. Here, the Consent Judgment was recorded at RM190,000.00, Court.

109.

on 21 December 2020, the Plaintiff lodged a private caveat on the Residential Property (page 5 of B4) to stop any dealings, but withdrew it on 1 July 2021 without any explanation; the withdrawal of the private caveat led to the transfer of the Residential Property to Atikurrahman Bin Mustapha and the creation of the NLC Charge in favour of CIMB Islamic Bank; since this civil suit was filed in 2021 and the Second Transfer occurred in 2022, after the withdrawal of the private caveat, the Plaintiff could have withdrawn and refiled this civil suit, naming the existing Defendants together with Atikurrahman Bin Mustafa and CIMB Islamic Bank, and challenging the First Transfer, the Second Transfer, and the NLC Charge. However, the Plaintiff did not do so; although the First Transfer is invalid, the Plaintiff did not challenge the validity of the Second Transfer or the NLC Charge. By implication, the Plaintiff accepts the validity of both; by asking for a fresh IDT to be issued in her name without naming the Existing Proprietor and CIMB Islamic Bank in this civil suit, the Plaintiff has urged this Court to order the issuance of a fresh IDT in her name and to deny the Existing Proprietor prepared to do; in the absence of a challenge to the validity of the Second est for a new IDT to be issued in her capacity as estate administrator is without merit and is therefore denied (Tan Ying Hong v. Tan Sian San & Ors [2010] 2 MLJ 1; Setiakon Engineering Sdn Bhd v. Mak Yan Tai & Anor [2024] 5 MLJ 460; Malayan Banking Bhd v. Mohd Affandi bin Ahmad & Anor [2024] 6 MLJ 220; Lee Kok Chian v. Cheok Lam Chuan & Another Appeal [2025] MLRAU 221).

The Third Defendant was merely a legal assistant in another branch of the Fourth Defendant, involved only in recording the Consent

He was not involved in the preparation and execution of the Impugned Documents.

Therefore, the Plaintiff has failed to prove her fraud claim against the Third Defendant, and there should be no Order as to damages in favour of the Plaintiff against the Third Defendant.

Although the Fifth Defendant is a mere nominal Defendant, and there is no claim for damages against it, the Plaintiff still alleged that the Fifth Defendant was negligent in registering the First Transfer.

The Plaintiff should have adduced evidence that the Fifth Defendant breached its duty of care by registering the First Transfer. The Plaintiff failed to do so (Pendaftar Hakmilik, Pejabat Pendaftaran Wilayah Persekutuan Kuala Lumpur v. Poh Yang Hong [2016] 9 CLJ 297; Pendaftar Hakmilik, Pejabat Tanah Dan Galian Negeri Selangor v. Bank Pertanian Malaysia Berhad [2016] 3 CLJ 851).

f negligence against the Fifth Defendant should fail (Selvaduray v. Chinniah [1939] 8 MLJ 253; Tenaga Nasional Berhad v. Perwaja Steel Sdn Bhd [1998] 1 MLJ 713; Eastern Enterprise Ltd v. Ong Choo Kim [1969] 1 LNS; [1969]

Although a nominal Defendant, the Penolong Penasihat Undang-Undang Negeri Selangor still assisted the Court by providing the official land search, attending the full trial, and filing a written submission.

This helped the Court decide whether an IDT can be issued in the Plaint the Deceased.

119.

120.

121.

Here, the Plaintiff failed to provide sufficient evidence, such as a medical report, to support her claim that the Deceased and his family suffered stress and trauma from the transfer of the Residential Property to the First Defendant.

123.

124.

The Residential Property was valued at RM220,000.00 in the First Transfer.

However, the Deceased only received RM96,600.00, resulting in a loss of RM123,400.00 as shown below: Value During The First Transfer - RM 96,600.00 Loan Received =========== First Transfer Loss ===========

The Residential Property was later sold to Atikurrahman Bin Mustafa at RM260,000.00 in the Second Transfer.

This caused a further loss of RM40,000.00 to the Deceased, as shown below: RM260,000.00 Second Transfer Purchase Price - Value During The First Transfer =========== RM 40,000.00 Second Transfer Loss ===========

In total, the Deceased suffered a total loss of RM163,400.00 from the First Transfer and Second Transfer of the Residential Property as shown below: First Transfer Loss + RM 40,000.00 Second Transfer Loss =========== RM163,400.00 Total Loss Suffered ===========

For these reasons, I am of the view that the First, Second, and Fourth Defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay general damages of RM163,400.00 GD to the Plaintiff.

131.

As previously mentioned, the Deceased only borrowed money from the First Defendant but was defrauded into signing the Impugned Documents without understanding their implications.

The Impugned Documents were part of a sham, orchestrated by the First, Second and Fourth Defendants acting in concert, to conceal the to lose his Residential Property to the First Defendant, Atikurrahman Bin Mustapha, and CIMB Islamic Bank.

The First, Second and Fourth Defendants also abused the Court process by commencing the Bandar Baru Bangi Civil Suit and recording the Consent Judgment.

The conduct of the First, Second, and Fourth Defendants must not be tolerated.

I am of the view that it is appropriate for an award of exemplary damages of RM100,000.00 ED the First, Second, and Fourth Defendants to the Plaintiff to fraudulent transactions (Big Man Management Sdn Bhd v. Tenaga Nasional Berhad [2025] 5 MLRA 771).

Based on the above, the total amount of GD and ED is RM263,400.00 as shown below: RM163,400.00 GD + RM100,000.00 ED =========== RM263,400.00 Total GD And ED ===========

Regarding AD , it should be calculated at 25% of the Total GD and ED, which amounts to RM65,850.00 as shown below: RM263,400.00 Total GD and ED x 25% ============ RM 65,850.00 AD ============

The AD of RM65,850.00 should also be paid jointly and severally by the First, Second, and Fourth Defendants to the Plaintiff.

140.