AINUN MAZIYAH BINTI HASSAN 1. ) AWANG @ HAMZAH BIN DAUD 2. ) TENGKU WAJIHAH BINTI RAJA HARUN 3. ) Pejabat Tanah dan Galian Negeri 4. ) Kerajaan Negeri Kelantan

AINUN MAZIYAH BINTI HASSAN 1. ) AWANG @ HAMZAH BIN DAUD 2. ) TENGKU WAJIHAH BINTI RAJA HARUN 3. ) Pejabat Tanah dan Galian Negeri 4. ) Kerajaan Negeri Kelantan

Court accepted existence and genuineness of the PJB and eyewitness evidence of signing; found Form 14A defective/insufficient (no consideration recorded) and Plaintiff was confused/misled into writing "SEMUA" resulting in an instrument that was void/insufficient under Section 26 Contracts Act 1950; under Section 340...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
DA-21NCvC-7-04/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Parties
Plaintiff: Ainun Maziyah binti Hassan; Defendant 1: Awang @ Hamzah bin Daud; Defendant 2: Tengku Wajihah binti Raja Harun (Penolong Pentadbir Tanah, Pejabat Tanah dan Jajahan Kota Bharu); Defendant 3: Pendaftar Hakmilik, Pejabat Pengarah Tanah dan Galian Negeri Kelantan; Defendant 4: Kerajaan Negeri Kelantan
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
28 December 2023
Case Number
DA-21NCvC-7-04/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Procedural Posture
Civil (declaration, Rectification of Title, Damages and Costs) / Judgment (trial on the Merits)
Outcome
Plaintiff's claim allowed in part against Defendant 1; registration of transfer of full 3/10 set aside; re-registration of 1 acre to Plaintiff ordered; claims against Defendants 2, 3 and 4 dismissed; Defendant 1 counterclaim dismissed.
Legal Topics
Registration Indefeasibility Under National Land Code, Void/insufficient Instrument (form 14 A), Contract Formation and Section 26 Contracts Act 1950, Admissibility of Documentary Evidence Section 73 a Evidence Act 1950, Private Caveat (section 323 Nlc), Public Officer Immunity (government Proceedings Act 1956), Damages and Costs
Property Law Contract Law Evidence Law Administrative/public Law Registration Indefeasibility Under National Land Code Void/insufficient Instrument (form 14 A) Contract Formation and Section 26 Contracts Act 1950 Admissibility of Documentary Evidence Section 73 a Evidence Act 1950 +3 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 6 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 9
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ainun Maziyah binti Hassan

Plaintiff

Awang @ Hamzah bin Daud

Defendant 1

Tengku Wajihah binti Raja Harun (Penolong Pentadbir Tanah, Pejabat Tanah dan Jajahan Kota Bharu)

Defendant 2

Pendaftar Hakmilik, Pejabat Pengarah Tanah dan Galian Negeri Kelantan

Defendant 3

Kerajaan Negeri Kelantan

Defendant 4

Procedural Posture

Civil (declaration, Rectification of Title, Damages and Costs) / Judgment (trial on the Merits)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Existence and validity of the sale agreement (PJB) dated 18.12.2016
  2. 2 Whether sale price RM140,000 was for entire 3/10 share or only 1 acre and whether price was market reasonable
  3. 3 Whether Plaintiff was induced, deceived or defrauded by Defendant 1 resulting in transfer of entire share

Ratio Decidendi

Court accepted existence and genuineness of the PJB and eyewitness evidence of signing; found Form 14A defective/insufficient (no consideration recorded) and Plaintiff was confused/misled into writing "SEMUA" resulting in an instrument that was void/insufficient under Section 26 Contracts Act 1950; under Section 340 National Land Code registration was therefore defeasible and liable to be set aside; accordingly transfer of the full 3/10 share is declared void, 1 acre to be re-registered to Plaintiff, limited damages and costs awarded, and claims against public officers dismissed.

Court Disposition

Plaintiff's claim allowed in part against Defendant 1; registration of transfer of full 3/10 set aside; re-registration of 1 acre to Plaintiff ordered; claims against Defendants 2, 3 and 4 dismissed; Defendant 1 counterclaim dismissed.

Orders

  • Declaration that registration of transfer of 3/10 (5 ekar 320 depa) from Plaintiff to Defendant 1 is void and of no effect
  • Within 30 days of service of order Defendant 3 to cancel the registration of title transferred from Plaintiff to Defendant 1 and re-register 1 ekar of the 3/10 share now registered in Defendant 1's name back into Plaintiff's name