MATHAVI A/P NARAYANASAMY 1. MURUGAN A/L KRISHNAN 2. ONG PAH KIAN @ KOH POH KIAN 3. NURLINY, PANNIR MANNAR & CO 4. MURUGAN A/L THIRUMALAI

MATHAVI A/P NARAYANASAMY 1. MURUGAN A/L KRISHNAN 2. ONG PAH KIAN @ KOH POH KIAN 3. NURLINY, PANNIR MANNAR & CO 4. MURUGAN A/L THIRUMALAI

On the balance of probabilities the plaintiff voluntarily executed the SPA, TD and IPA in the presence of the solicitor who explained the documents; there was no proven fraud, misrepresentation or agency linking the alleged collector to the 2nd/3rd defendants; the SPA is valid and enforceable and the stated...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
WA-22NCVC-129-03/2016 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Parties
Plaintiff: Mathavi a/p Narayanasamy; 1st Defendant: Murugan a/l Krishnan; 2nd Defendant: Ong Pah Kian @ Koh Poh Kian; 3rd Defendant: Nurliny, Pannir Mannar & Co; 4th Defendant: Murugan a/l Thirumalai
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
10 June 2020
Case Number
WA-22NCVC-129-03/2016 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Procedural Posture
Civil Property/contract / High Court Judgment (trial)
Outcome
Claim against 2nd and 3rd defendants dismissed; 2nd defendant's counterclaim for vacant possession and removal of caveat (paras 34(a) and (b)) allowed; remaining counterclaim items dismissed; no order as to costs.
Legal Topics
Sale and Purchase Agreement, Trust Deed, Irrevocable Power of Attorney, Misrepresentation, Bona Fide Purchaser, Pleadings and Proof, Agency Proof, Money‑lending Characterisation
Property Contract Equity Fraud Agency Conveyancing Sale and Purchase Agreement Trust Deed +6 more

Source-derived case record

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 5 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 9
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mathavi a/p Narayanasamy

Plaintiff

Murugan a/l Krishnan

1st Defendant

Ong Pah Kian @ Koh Poh Kian

2nd Defendant

Nurliny, Pannir Mannar & Co

3rd Defendant

Murugan a/l Thirumalai

4th Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Property/contract / High Court Judgment (trial)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the SPA, trust deed and IPA were valid and enforceable
  2. 2 Whether the documents were procured by fraud or misrepresentation
  3. 3 Whether the transaction was a disguised money‑lending transaction

Ratio Decidendi

On the balance of probabilities the plaintiff voluntarily executed the SPA, TD and IPA in the presence of the solicitor who explained the documents; there was no proven fraud, misrepresentation or agency linking the alleged collector to the 2nd/3rd defendants; the SPA is valid and enforceable and the stated consideration was paid/acknowledged; accordingly the plaintiff's claim against the 2nd and 3rd defendants is dismissed and the 2nd defendant is entitled to vacant possession and removal of the caveat in part of its counterclaim.

Court Disposition

Claim against 2nd and 3rd defendants dismissed; 2nd defendant's counterclaim for vacant possession and removal of caveat (paras 34(a) and (b)) allowed; remaining counterclaim items dismissed; no order as to costs.

Orders

  • Claim against the 2nd and 3rd defendants is dismissed.
  • Para 34(a) and (b) of the 2nd defendant's counterclaim in respect of vacant possession and removal of caveat are allowed.