ASMAH BINTI MAHFUL 1. ) HASSAN BIN YUSOF 2. ) Pentadbir Tanah Daerah Hulu Langat

ASMAH BINTI MAHFUL 1. ) HASSAN BIN YUSOF 2. ) Pentadbir Tanah Daerah Hulu Langat

On the balance of probabilities the court found the 1st Defendant knowingly signed the transfer documents; he failed to prove non est factum, fraud or forgery; the Plaintiff proved payment of the deposit pursuant to a mutually agreed variation; the Defendant did not terminate the SPA and thus had implicitly elected to affirm it; consequently the SPA remained valid and specifically enforceable, and the Plaintiff was entitled to a decree of specific performance with costs of RM10,000.

Citation
BA-22NCvC-509-12/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Parties
Plaintiff: Asmah binti Mahful; 1st Defendant: Hassan bin Yusof; 2nd Defendant: Pentadbir Tanah dan Daerah Hulu Langat
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
10 December 2025
Case Number
BA-22NCvC-509-12/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Procedural Posture
Civil Contract (specific Performance) / Judgment After Trial
Outcome
Decree of specific performance granted in favour of the Plaintiff against the 1st Defendant
Legal Topics
Specific Performance, Non Est Factum, Fraud and Misrepresentation, Deposit Payment, Doctrine of Election, Attestation Under National Land Code S211, Variation of Contract, Enforceability of Sale Agreements
Source Language
Malay/English
Contract Property Equity Civil Procedure Specific Performance Non Est Factum Fraud and Misrepresentation Deposit Payment +4 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 5 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Asmah binti Mahful

Plaintiff

Hassan bin Yusof

1st Defendant

Pentadbir Tanah dan Daerah Hulu Langat

2nd Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Contract (specific Performance) / Judgment After Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the 1st Defendant can rely on non est factum to avoid contractual obligations
  2. 2 Whether the transfer documents were procured by fraud or misrepresentation
  3. 3 Whether the Plaintiff paid the 10% deposit as required and whether any shortfall voids the SPA

Ratio Decidendi

On the balance of probabilities the court found the 1st Defendant knowingly signed the transfer documents; he failed to prove non est factum, fraud or forgery; the Plaintiff proved payment of the deposit pursuant to a mutually agreed variation; the Defendant did not terminate the SPA and thus had implicitly elected to affirm it; consequently the SPA remained valid and specifically enforceable, and the Plaintiff was entitled to a decree of specific performance with costs of RM10,000.

Court Disposition

Decree of specific performance granted in favour of the Plaintiff against the 1st Defendant

Orders

  • Grant decree of specific performance ordering the 1st Defendant to implement the SPA and enable the Plaintiff to purchase the property in accordance with the terms of the SPA
  • Order the 1st Defendant to take all necessary steps to enable registration of the transfer in favour of the Plaintiff