SUKHDARSHAN SINGH A/L BAG SINGH v TERMIT KAUR A/P RANJIT SINGH

wa-12bncc-30-09-2023 High Court (Mahkamah Tinggi) 2 March 2025 • WA-12BNCC-30-09/2023

Catchwords

illegal moneylending-Moneylenders Act 1951-The burden is on the defendant to prove this assertion of his by virtue of sections 101 to 103 of the Evidence Act 1950-Burden of proof as to particular fact-question of who in law, shall bear the burden to prove forgery-alleging that his signature on the SSA was a forgery-he bore the onus of proving that the signature was a forgery-The principles on when an Appellate Court can intervene in a trial judge’s findings of fact from decided cases are as follows-The starting premise must be that as the trial judge had based his findings of fact on the evidence of the witnesses, his findings of fact should not be disturbed-It is only in the rare cases where an Appellate Court, lacking the advantage of seeing and hearing the witnesses, is justified in coming to a different conclusion from the trial judge’s findings of fact-It is well-settled law that an Appellate Court will not, generally speaking, intervene to reverse the trial judge’s findings of fact unless the trial judge is shown to be plainly wrong in arriving at his decision-As long as the trial judge’s findings of fact can be supported on a rational basis in view of the material evidence, the fact that the Appellate Court feels like it might have decided differently is irrelevant. The trial judge should be accorded a margin of appreciation when his treatment of the evidence is examined by the Appellate Court-Unjust enrichment-In Dream Property, the Federal Court set down the principles of unjust enrichment applicable in Malaysia as follows-The defendant must have been enriched-The enrichment must be gained at the plaintiff’s expense-That the retention of the benefit by the defendant was unjust- There must be no defence available to extinguish or reduce the defendant’s liability to make restitution

Practice Areas

illegal moneylending-Moneylenders Act 1951-The burden is on the defendant to prove this assertion of his by virtue of sections 101 to 103 of the Evidence Act 1950-Burden of proof as to particular fact-question of who in law, shall bear the burden to prove forgery-alleging that his signature on the SSA was a forgery-he bore the onus of proving that the signature was a forgery-The principles on when an Appellate Court can intervene in a trial judge’s findings of fact from decided cases are as follows-The starting premise must be that as the trial judge had based his findings of fact on the evidence of the witnesses, his findings of fact should not be disturbed-It is only in the rare cases where an Appellate Court, lacking the advantage of seeing and hearing the witnesses, is justified in coming to a different conclusion from the trial judge’s findings of fact-It is well-settled law that an Appellate Court will not, generally speaking, intervene to reverse the trial judge’s findings of fact unless the trial judge is shown to be plainly wrong in arriving at his decision-As long as the trial judge’s findings of fact can be supported on a rational basis in view of the material evidence, the fact that the Appellate Court feels like it might have decided differently is irrelevant. The trial judge should be accorded a margin of appreciation when his treatment of the evidence is examined by the Appellate Court-Unjust enrichment-In Dream Property, the Federal Court set down the principles of unjust enrichment applicable in Malaysia as follows-The defendant must have been enriched-The enrichment must be gained at the plaintiff’s expense-That the retention of the benefit by the defendant was unjust- There must be no defence available to extinguish or reduce the defendant’s liability to make restitution

Judges (1)

Leong Wai Hong Delivered

Parties (2)

Sukhdarshan Singh a/l Bag Singh Appellant Termit Kaur a/p Ranjit Singh Respondent

Case Significance

SUKHDARSHAN SINGH A/L BAG SINGH v TERMIT KAUR A/P RANJIT SINGH is a High Court (Mahkamah Tinggi) decision dated March 2, 2025 (citation: wa-12bncc-30-09-2023). The case was decided by Leong Wai Hong.

What was the outcome of SUKHDARSHAN SINGH A/L BAG SINGH v TERMIT KAUR A/P RANJIT SINGH?

SUKHDARSHAN SINGH A/L BAG SINGH v TERMIT KAUR A/P RANJIT SINGH is a High Court decision dated March 2, 2025. The case was heard by Leong Wai Hong. See the full judgment for details.