Ibrahim Bin Hashim 1. ) Devi Mulya Tristiati 2. ) CITIBANK BERHAD

Ibrahim Bin Hashim 1. ) Devi Mulya Tristiati 2. ) CITIBANK BERHAD

Plaintiff failed to prove on the balance of probabilities that (a) any enforceable marital contract or conditions existed, (b) the 2005 transfer was procured by undue influence, coercion, manipulation or domination, or (c) that torts of conversion, detinue, trespass or unlawful interference were committed; contemporaneous documents showed a voluntary transfer and a valid registered charge in 2014; Citibank acquired its charge in good faith for value and therefore holds an indefeasible interest under s340(3) NLC; accordingly plaintiff's claims are dismissed with costs.

Citation
PA-22NCvC-186-09/2017 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Parties
Plaintiff: Ibrahim bin Hashim; First Defendant: Devi Mulya Tristiati; Second Defendant: Citibank Berhad
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
19 April 2023
Case Number
PA-22NCvC-186-09/2017 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Procedural Posture
Civil Suit (post Trial Judgment) / Judgment/post Trial
Outcome
Plaintiff's claim dismissed
Legal Topics
Undue Influence, Coercion, Conversion, Detinue, Trespass to Property, Indefeasibility of Title, Registration of Charge, Marital Promises, Burden and Standard of Proof, Preference for Contemporaneous Documents
Source Language
Malay/English
Contract Tort Land Law Family Law Equity Undue Influence Coercion Conversion +7 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 7 Authorities cited 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ibrahim bin Hashim

Plaintiff

Devi Mulya Tristiati

First Defendant

Citibank Berhad

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Suit (post Trial Judgment) / Judgment/post Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defendant breached alleged marital promises and agreed conditions
  2. 2 Whether the transfer of the house was induced by undue influence, manipulation, coercion or domination
  3. 3 Whether Citibank as subsequent chargee acquired an indefeasible interest under s340(3) NLC despite alleged undue influence

Ratio Decidendi

Plaintiff failed to prove on the balance of probabilities that (a) any enforceable marital contract or conditions existed, (b) the 2005 transfer was procured by undue influence, coercion, manipulation or domination, or (c) that torts of conversion, detinue, trespass or unlawful interference were committed; contemporaneous documents showed a voluntary transfer and a valid registered charge in 2014; Citibank acquired its charge in good faith for value and therefore holds an indefeasible interest under s340(3) NLC; accordingly plaintiff's claims are dismissed with costs.

Court Disposition

Plaintiff's claim dismissed

Orders

  • Plaintiff's claim is dismissed
  • Plaintiff shall pay costs of RM50,000.00 to the First Defendant (Devi Mulya Tristiati)