Ramesh Sivaraj A/l Rajasingham Chelliah v Sithamparanathan a/l Nadarajah

Case Significance

Confirms that in a friendly-loan claim a defendant who alleges that his signature on the agreement was forged bears the onus of proving the forgery once the lender has proved the agreement, and that an appellate court will not disturb the trial judge's authenticity findings absent error.

This High Court decision at Shah Alam concerns an appeal, after a full trial in the Sessions Court, in a claim for repayment of a friendly loan, and the allocation of the burden of proof where the borrower alleges that his signature on the loan agreement was forged. The plaintiff had sued on a friendly-loan agreement dated 5 October 2018 under which RM275,000 was advanced and made repayable in eight instalments between 31 January and 31 August 2019. The Sessions Court, after hearing the witnesses, found the defendant liable to repay RM250,000 together with interest and costs. On appeal the defendant contended that the agreement was not authentic and that his signature on it had been forged, and that his pleaded defence should have prevailed. The Court examined the trial judge's treatment of the evidence, including the fact that the agreement had been produced and marked in evidence without objection, and the trial judge's assessment, with the benefit of seeing and hearing the witnesses, that the agreement was authentic. Applying the provisions of the Evidence Act 1950 on proof of documents and burden of proof — including sections 45, 67, 73, 101, 102 and 103 — the Court held that the trial judge had correctly found that the plaintiff had discharged his burden of proving the loan and the agreement, whereupon the onus shifted to the defendant to prove his alternative version of events and the alleged forgery of his signature. The defendant had failed to do so with any persuasive evidence, and his pleaded defence was inconsistent with the evidence adduced at trial. Finding no error warranting appellate interference, the Court dismissed the appeal. The decision illustrates that a party who alleges forgery of his own signature bears the onus of proving it. The Court's approach confirms that a bare allegation of forgery, unsupported by cogent evidence such as expert handwriting analysis, will not displace a document the trial court has found authentic after seeing the witnesses, and that an appellate court reviewing such a finding will be slow to substitute its own view of the credibility of oral testimony.