Woman ordered to pay RM900,000 to former mother-in-law

 The High Court rules that the amount is part of a RM1.2 million deposit for a housing loan and was not a gift.

The High Court in Shah Alam allowed a suit brought by a businesswoman against her former daughter-in-law over money for a housing loan application.

SHAH ALAM:

 The High Court here has ordered a woman to pay RM900,000 to her former mother-in-law, after ruling that the amount was part of a RM1.2 million housing loan and not a gift.

Justice Jamhirah Ali allowed a suit by Tamil Selvi Muruggapan, and held that “a single, coherent case” had been advanced that the RM1.2 million was a short-term, conditional loan.

Jamhirah Ali.

Tamil Selvi, 66, sued her former daughter-in-law Mogana Sivaraman, 44, in 2021, demanding the return of RM1.2 million.

However, the court ordered Mogana to pay only RM900,000, after Tamil Selvi agreed to claim the balance from her son, MR Alagu Ganeshan, who is Mogana’s former husband.

The judge also dismissed Mogana’s counterclaim against Tamil Selvi and Alagu.

Mogana was also ordered to pay costs of RM40,000 to Tamil Selvi and RM7,000 to Alagu.

According to the facts of the case, Mogana and Alagu were married in 2012 and lived with Tamil Selvi, a businesswoman.

In July 2016, Mogana paid a booking deposit of RM5,000 for a condominium apartment priced at RM913,207 at D’Sands Residence in Kuala Lumpur.

As her income and savings were insufficient to qualify for a housing loan, the bank advised her to demonstrate substantial funds in a deposit to support her application.

Two months later, Mogana asked her mother-in-law to place RM1 million in a fixed deposit joint account to support her housing loan application, promising to return the money once the loan was approved.

Mogana then signed an application to RHB Bank Bhd for a housing loan of RM852,938.

The following month, Mogana informed Tamil Selvi that the bank required the RM1 million fixed deposit to be placed solely under her (Mogana’s) name, which was later done.

Mogana also requested Tamil Selvi to place a further RM200,000 in the fixed deposit.

After Mogana’s loan application was rejected by the bank, she did not refund the money to Tamil Selvi but transferred the money to another account instead.

Tamil Selvi subsequently lodged a police report and sent a letter of demand seeking the return of RM1.2 million, but to no avail.

In court today, Justice Jamhirah held that the evidence presented by Tamil Selvi was unshakeable and that the overall structure of the transaction was “inconsistent with a gift”.

“Each step was driven by the stated need to satisfy the bank’s conditions for the housing loan,” she said.

“Gifts are not structured around banking requirements. This arrangement bears every hallmark of temporary, conditional bridging finance”.

Tamil Selvi was represented by Srividhya Ganapathy and Eisyarmily Akhtar, Kamaleswari Shanmugam appeared for Mogana, and Sarinah Mustafa and Ambiga Pandian represented Alagu. - FMT