SUBRAMANIAM A/L MUNIANDY (I/C NO: 660903-08-5249) 1. LETCHUMI A/P THASAN (I/C NO: 500907-10-5224 / 8034625) 2. PATHMA A/P MUNIANDY (I/C NO: 770216-10-5866) 3. SOORIAMOORTHY A/L NADARAJAH (No. Pendaftaran Pesuruhjaya Sumpah: B363)

SUBRAMANIAM A/L MUNIANDY (I/C NO: 660903-08-5249) 1. LETCHUMI A/P THASAN (I/C NO: 500907-10-5224 / 8034625) 2. PATHMA A/P MUNIANDY (I/C NO: 770216-10-5866) 3. SOORIAMOORTHY A/L NADARAJAH (No. Pendaftaran Pesuruhjaya Sumpah: B363)

On the balance of probabilities the Court found the Appellant did not execute the PA and his signature on the PA was forged; the PA was therefore invalid and attestation by the Third Respondent was false; transfers founded on the forged PA and attendant fraud destroyed indefeasibility under s.340 NLC and the Second Respondent failed to prove she was a bona fide purchaser for value in good faith with adequate documentary proof; accordingly title reverts to the Appellant and the appeal is allowed with costs.

Citation
B-02(NCVC)(W)-1446-08/2019 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Parties
Appellant: Subramaniam a/l Muniandy; First Respondent: Letchumi a/p Thasan; Second Respondent: Pathma a/p Muniandy; Third Respondent: Sooriamoorthy a/l Nadarajah
Court
NCVC
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
17 September 2020
Case Number
B-02(NCVC)(W)-1446-08/2019 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court Judgment (grounds of Judgment by Court of Appeal)
Outcome
Appeal allowed; High Court decision set aside; Appellant declared rightful owner and entitled to restoration of registration; costs to Appellant
Legal Topics
Power of Attorney, Forgery, Indefeasibility of Title, Burden of Proof Under Evidence Act, Commissioners of Oaths Register Requirements, Good Faith Purchaser for Value
Source Language
Malay/English
Land Law Evidence Fraud Family Law Property Law Power of Attorney Forgery Indefeasibility of Title +3 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 8 Authorities cited 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Subramaniam a/l Muniandy

Appellant

Letchumi a/p Thasan

First Respondent

Pathma a/p Muniandy

Second Respondent

Sooriamoorthy a/l Nadarajah

Third Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court Judgment (grounds of Judgment by Court of Appeal)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Power of Attorney (PA) was validly executed by the Appellant or forged
  2. 2 Whether the transfers to the First and subsequently to the Second Respondents were tainted by fraud or forgery
  3. 3 Whether the Second Respondent is a bona fide purchaser for value and holds an indefeasible title under s.340 NLC

Ratio Decidendi

On the balance of probabilities the Court found the Appellant did not execute the PA and his signature on the PA was forged; the PA was therefore invalid and attestation by the Third Respondent was false; transfers founded on the forged PA and attendant fraud destroyed indefeasibility under s.340 NLC and the Second Respondent failed to prove she was a bona fide purchaser for value in good faith with adequate documentary proof; accordingly title reverts to the Appellant and the appeal is allowed with costs.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; High Court decision set aside; Appellant declared rightful owner and entitled to restoration of registration; costs to Appellant

Orders

  • Appeal allowed
  • Declare Appellant the lawful owner of the land and direct restoration of registration in his name