DHANALETCHMY A/P SUBRAMANIAM 1. ) RAJANDRAN A/L SUBRAMANIAM 2. ) GUNAPAANDIAN A/L PONNUSAMY 3. ) HJ ABDUL WAHAB BIN ABDUL RANI 4. ) JABATAN KETUA PENGARAH TANAH DAN GALIAN (PERSEKUTUAN) NEGERI SELANGOR 5. ) BANK PERTANIAN 6. ) Kaniappan A/l

DHANALETCHMY A/P SUBRAMANIAM 1. ) RAJANDRAN A/L SUBRAMANIAM 2. ) GUNAPAANDIAN A/L PONNUSAMY 3. ) HJ ABDUL WAHAB BIN ABDUL RANI 4. ) JABATAN KETUA PENGARAH TANAH DAN GALIAN (PERSEKUTUAN) NEGERI SELANGOR 5. ) BANK PERTANIAN 6. ) Kaniappan A/l

The court found the distribution orders were fraudulently obtained by the 1st Defendant excluding the Plaintiff, rendering those orders null and void; consequently the 1st Defendant's registered title was defeasible for fraud under s.340(2)(a). The 2nd Defendant failed to prove he was a bona fide purchaser for valuable consideration because the purchase price (RM300,000) was substantially below the market value and he knew of the Plaintiff's possession and failed to make inquiries, so his title is defeasible. The 5th Defendant bank complied with procedures and holds an indefeasible registered charge under the proviso to s.340(3). Appropriate equitable remedy ordered: set aside transfers,...

Citation
BA-22NCvC-541-11/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Parties
Plaintiff: DHANALETCHMY A/P SUBRAMANIAM; Defendant 1: RAJANDRAN A/L SUBRAMANIAM; Defendant 2: GUNAPAANDIAN A/L PONNUSAMY; Defendant 3: HJ ABDUL WAHAB BIN ABDUL RANI; Defendant 4: JABATAN KETUA PENGARAH TANAH DAN GALIAN (PERSEKUTUAN) NEGERI SELANGOR; Defendant 5: BANK PERTANIAN MALAYSIA BERHAD; Defendant 6: KANIAPPAN A/L MUNIANDY; Defendant 7: PANJAVARNAM A/P SUPERMANIAM
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
14 December 2022
Case Number
BA-22NCvC-541-11/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Procedural Posture
Civil Suit (land/distribution) / Judgment After Trial (grounds of Judgment Issued)
Outcome
Judgment for Plaintiff in part against Defendant 1 and Defendant 2; claims against Defendant 5 dismissed; distribution orders of 28.3.2002 and 22.8.2002 declared void; 2nd Defendant's and 1st Defendant's titles held defeasible; bank's registered charge held indefeasible and preserved subject to redemption mechanism.
Legal Topics
Small Estates Distribution Act 1955, National Land Code S.340 Indefeasibility, Fraudulent Procurement of Distribution Order, Bona Fide Purchaser for Value, Registered Charge and Indefeasibility, Negligence (bank)
Source Language
Malay/English
Succession Land Law Property Law Tort Banking & Finance Equity Small Estates Distribution Act 1955 National Land Code S.340 Indefeasibility +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 15 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 8
Sign in to unlock

Parties

DHANALETCHMY A/P SUBRAMANIAM

Plaintiff

RAJANDRAN A/L SUBRAMANIAM

Defendant 1

GUNAPAANDIAN A/L PONNUSAMY

Defendant 2

HJ ABDUL WAHAB BIN ABDUL RANI

Defendant 3

JABATAN KETUA PENGARAH TANAH DAN GALIAN (PERSEKUTUAN) NEGERI SELANGOR

Defendant 4

BANK PERTANIAN MALAYSIA BERHAD

Defendant 5

KANIAPPAN A/L MUNIANDY

Defendant 6

PANJAVARNAM A/P SUPERMANIAM

Defendant 7

Procedural Posture

Civil Suit (land/distribution) / Judgment After Trial (grounds of Judgment Issued)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether distribution orders dated 28.3.2002 and 22.8.2002 were validly issued and effect on title
  2. 2 Whether 1st Defendant's registered title is defeasible for fraud under s.340(2) NLC
  3. 3 Whether 2nd Defendant is a bona fide purchaser for valuable consideration and thus has indefeasible title under proviso to s.340(3) NLC

Ratio Decidendi

The court found the distribution orders were fraudulently obtained by the 1st Defendant excluding the Plaintiff, rendering those orders null and void; consequently the 1st Defendant's registered title was defeasible for fraud under s.340(2)(a). The 2nd Defendant failed to prove he was a bona fide purchaser for valuable consideration because the purchase price (RM300,000) was substantially below the market value and he knew of the Plaintiff's possession and failed to make inquiries, so his title is defeasible. The 5th Defendant bank complied with procedures and holds an indefeasible registered charge under the proviso to s.340(3). Appropriate equitable remedy ordered: set aside transfers,...

Court Disposition

Judgment for Plaintiff in part against Defendant 1 and Defendant 2; claims against Defendant 5 dismissed; distribution orders of 28.3.2002 and 22.8.2002 declared void; 2nd Defendant's and 1st Defendant's titles held defeasible; bank's registered charge held indefeasible and preserved subject to redemption mechanism.

Orders

  • Distribution orders dated 28.3.2002 and 22.8.2002 set aside as void
  • Registration of the said land in the name of Defendant 1 declared null and void