SULAIMAN BIN AHMAD DAN 37 YANG LAIN JEMAIN BIN MOHAMED DAN 4 YANG LAIN

SULAIMAN BIN AHMAD DAN 37 YANG LAIN JEMAIN BIN MOHAMED DAN 4 YANG LAIN

Plaintiffs had locus standi by virtue of the Court of Appeal order and their Sijil Faraid; evidence (including judicial admission by First Defendant, JPN records and witness testimony) established forgery/void instruments and that the ex‑parte order was obtained by fraud; therefore the title registered in the Third Defendant's name is defeasible under s.340(2)(b) NLC and the ex‑parte order of 24.10.2013 is null and set aside; the Third Defendant as immediate purchaser cannot rely on the s.340(3) proviso to defeat the claim; reliefs sought in paragraphs 29(a)-(f) and (h) of the statement of claim are allowed.

Citation
JA-22NCVC-97-04/2017 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Parties
Plaintiffs: Sulaiman bin Ahmad and others (38 plaintiffs); First Defendant: Jemain bin Mohamed; Second Defendant: Mohd Shuujaa bin Halim; Third Defendant: Teguh Asiamas Sdn Bhd; Fourth Defendant: Nooraizan binti Idris; Fifth Defendant: Hazli bin Jamaluddin
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
29 August 2019
Case Number
JA-22NCVC-97-04/2017 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Procedural Posture
Civil (land/title) / High Court Judgment After Trial (final Judgment Dated 14 June 2020)
Outcome
Plaintiffs' claim allowed as pleaded (paragraphs 29(a),(b),(c),(d),(e),(f) and (h) of statement of claim)
Legal Topics
Indefeasibility of Title, Section 340 National Land Code, Faraid Certificate as Evidence, Locus Standi of Beneficiaries, Ex Parte Order Set Aside, Preservation/retransfer Relief
Source Language
Malay/English
Land Law Succession (islamic) Civil Procedure Fraud/forgery Indefeasibility of Title Section 340 National Land Code Faraid Certificate as Evidence Locus Standi of Beneficiaries +2 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 6 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Sulaiman bin Ahmad and others (38 plaintiffs)

Plaintiffs

Jemain bin Mohamed

First Defendant

Mohd Shuujaa bin Halim

Second Defendant

Teguh Asiamas Sdn Bhd

Third Defendant

Nooraizan binti Idris

Fourth Defendant

Hazli bin Jamaluddin

Fifth Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil (land/title) / High Court Judgment After Trial (final Judgment Dated 14 June 2020)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Letter of Administration was required for beneficiaries to commence declaratory and consequential reliefs
  2. 2 Whether title registered in Third Defendant's name is defeasible under s.340(2)(a),(b) or (c) NLC on grounds of fraud, forgery or void instrument
  3. 3 Whether the ex-parte High Court Order dated 24.10.2013 (order for sale) can be set aside in these proceedings

Ratio Decidendi

Plaintiffs had locus standi by virtue of the Court of Appeal order and their Sijil Faraid; evidence (including judicial admission by First Defendant, JPN records and witness testimony) established forgery/void instruments and that the ex‑parte order was obtained by fraud; therefore the title registered in the Third Defendant's name is defeasible under s.340(2)(b) NLC and the ex‑parte order of 24.10.2013 is null and set aside; the Third Defendant as immediate purchaser cannot rely on the s.340(3) proviso to defeat the claim; reliefs sought in paragraphs 29(a)-(f) and (h) of the statement of claim are allowed.

Court Disposition

Plaintiffs' claim allowed as pleaded (paragraphs 29(a),(b),(c),(d),(e),(f) and (h) of statement of claim)

Orders

  • Declaration that the transfer/registration in favour of the Third Defendant is defeasible/void on grounds of forgery/void instrument and fraud
  • Ex‑parte High Court Order dated 24.10.2013 (Originating Summons No. 24NCVC-271-10/2013) set aside as nullity ab initio