LEE YONG BENG ONG TEE MEE

LEE YONG BENG ONG TEE MEE

The SPA dated 14.5.2015 established the contractual purchase price as RM410,000; the extra RM190,000 paid by the plaintiff was a separate renovation reimbursement to the vendor and did not involve the defendant; the Sessions Court erred in adopting an unpleaded RM420,000 and awarding RM210,000; the defendant furnished valuable consideration by assuming co‑borrower liability of RM390,000 (sufficient consideration) and is therefore entitled to retain a 50% undivided beneficial interest; the plaintiff failed to prove RM600,000 was the agreed purchase price and his claim fails.

Citation
JA-12BNCvC-5-04/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Parties
Appellant / Plaintiff (trial): Lee Yong Beng; Respondent / Defendant (trial): Ong Tee Mee
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
18 November 2025
Case Number
JA-12BNCvC-5-04/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal (consolidated) From Sessions Court / Appeal Hearing and Judgment (decision Delivered 18 November 2025)
Outcome
Plaintiff's appeal dismissed; Defendant's appeal allowed; Sessions Court award of RM210,000 set aside; declaration that Defendant holds 50% undivided beneficial interest in the Property
Legal Topics
Purchase Price Dispute, Illegality (under‑declaration), Pleadings and Relief, Consideration and Co‑borrower Liability, Co‑ownership/beneficial Interest, Burden of Proof, Resulting Trust and Partition
Source Language
Malay/English
Property Law Contract Law Evidence Law Civil Procedure Tax Law (stamp Duty/rpgt) Purchase Price Dispute Illegality (under‑declaration) Pleadings and Relief +4 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 6 Authorities cited 18 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 7
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Lee Yong Beng

Appellant / Plaintiff (trial)

Ong Tee Mee

Respondent / Defendant (trial)

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal (consolidated) From Sessions Court / Appeal Hearing and Judgment (decision Delivered 18 November 2025)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 What was the true purchase price of the property?
  2. 2 Whether the plaintiff's claim is tainted by illegality (under‑declaration)
  3. 3 Whether the Court can award an unpleaded sum (RM210,000)

Ratio Decidendi

The SPA dated 14.5.2015 established the contractual purchase price as RM410,000; the extra RM190,000 paid by the plaintiff was a separate renovation reimbursement to the vendor and did not involve the defendant; the Sessions Court erred in adopting an unpleaded RM420,000 and awarding RM210,000; the defendant furnished valuable consideration by assuming co‑borrower liability of RM390,000 (sufficient consideration) and is therefore entitled to retain a 50% undivided beneficial interest; the plaintiff failed to prove RM600,000 was the agreed purchase price and his claim fails.

Court Disposition

Plaintiff's appeal dismissed; Defendant's appeal allowed; Sessions Court award of RM210,000 set aside; declaration that Defendant holds 50% undivided beneficial interest in the Property

Orders

  • Plaintiff's appeal dismissed with costs of MYR 6,000.00 subject to allocatur
  • Defendant's appeal allowed with costs of MYR 6,000.00 subject to allocatur