JAMIL BIN ARASHAT 1. ) NORDIN BIN OMAR 2. ) ABDUL RAHMAN BIN AHMAD 3. ) MOHD RAFFI BIN ABDULLAH 4. ) RHB BANK BERHAD 5. ) Pentadbir Tanah dan Daerah Seberang Perai Utara

JAMIL BIN ARASHAT 1. ) NORDIN BIN OMAR 2. ) ABDUL RAHMAN BIN AHMAD 3. ) MOHD RAFFI BIN ABDULLAH 4. ) RHB BANK BERHAD 5. ) Pentadbir Tanah dan Daerah Seberang Perai Utara

Both the strike‑out application and the application for summary judgment were dismissed because the alleged fraud, forgery, identity misrepresentation and the chain of intermediate transfers, as well as the bona fides and indefeasibility of Defendant 4's mortgagee interest, raise triable issues of fact and law that cannot be resolved on interlocutory applications; limitation and locus were not established so as to justify dismissal.

Citation
PA-22NCVC-122-07/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Parties
Plaintiff (representative and Heir of Abdul Arshat Bin Haji Shaban): Jamil bin Arashad; Defendant 1: Nordin bin Omar; Defendant 2: Abdul Rahman bin Ahmad; Defendant 3: Mohd Raffi bin Abdullah; Defendant 4 (financial Institution, Mortgagee): RHB Bank Berhad; Defendant 5 (land Administrator): Pentadbir Tanah Daerah Seberang Perai Utara, Pulau Pinang
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
10 December 2021
Case Number
PA-22NCVC-122-07/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Procedural Posture
Civil (guaman Sivil) / Interlocutory Applications (strike Out Under Order 18/rule 19 and Summary Judgment Under Order 14) Decided
Outcome
Lampiran 26 and Lampiran 28 dismissed
Legal Topics
Right of Survivorship, Indefeasibility of Title, Forgery and Fraud, Limitation Period (discoverability), Locus Standi of Beneficiaries, Mortgage/charge Enforcement, Strike Out/summary Judgment Standards
Source Language
Malay/English
Land Law Property Civil Procedure Equity Succession Banking Law Right of Survivorship Indefeasibility of Title +5 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 4 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Jamil bin Arashad

Plaintiff (representative and Heir of Abdul Arshat Bin Haji Shaban)

Nordin bin Omar

Defendant 1

Abdul Rahman bin Ahmad

Defendant 2

Mohd Raffi bin Abdullah

Defendant 3

RHB Bank Berhad

Defendant 4 (financial Institution, Mortgagee)

Pentadbir Tanah Daerah Seberang Perai Utara, Pulau Pinang

Defendant 5 (land Administrator)

Procedural Posture

Civil (guaman Sivil) / Interlocutory Applications (strike Out Under Order 18/rule 19 and Summary Judgment Under Order 14) Decided

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the plaintiff's claim was time‑barred under the Limitation Act 1953
  2. 2 Whether the plaintiff had locus standi to sue as representative/beneficiary
  3. 3 Whether the mortgagee (Defendant 4) holds an indefeasible interest as a bona fide purchaser for value

Ratio Decidendi

Both the strike‑out application and the application for summary judgment were dismissed because the alleged fraud, forgery, identity misrepresentation and the chain of intermediate transfers, as well as the bona fides and indefeasibility of Defendant 4's mortgagee interest, raise triable issues of fact and law that cannot be resolved on interlocutory applications; limitation and locus were not established so as to justify dismissal.

Court Disposition

Lampiran 26 and Lampiran 28 dismissed

Orders

  • Lampiran 26 dismissed with costs in the cause
  • Lampiran 28 dismissed with costs in the cause