Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Bare trust

Legal area

Court

1 Apr 2026

New Station 99 Sdn Bhd 1. ) Syarikat Perumahan Negara Berhad 2. ) Cosmic Master Development Sdn Bhd

Citation

JA-22NCC-44-05/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

JA-22NCC-44-05/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

D2 was lawfully appointed agent under a valid PA and acted within the authority conferred; D1 is therefore bound by D2's acts, including receipt of RM4,000,000, issuance of the Surat Akujanji and execution of the SPAs; payment of the full purchase price vested beneficial ownership in the Plaintiff making D1 the bare trustee; Plaintiff is entitled to specific performance and late delivery interest at 10% p.a. from 17 July 2015 until delivery.
21 Oct 2025

1. ) Lee Chay Boon 2. ) Poh Kim Tong Sabah Development Bank Berhad

Citation

JA-22NCvC-146-11/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

JA-22NCvC-146-11/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Because the plaintiffs proved payment in full and delivery of vacant possession before the charge was executed, the developer was a bare trustee with no beneficial or registrable interest; the bank took the charge directly from that vendor and, as an immediate chargee, cannot invoke the proviso to s340(3) NLC; therefore the Form 16A instrument is void/insufficient under s340(2)(b) NLC and its registration is defeasible and must be set aside.
27 Nov 2024

SARASWATHY A/P SUPRAMANIAM 1. ) CHANDRAN A/L MARIAMUTHU 2. ) MALIPU A/P MARUTHA

Citation

BL-A52NCvC-35-05/2022 (Mahkamah Sesyen)
Court

Sessions Court
Case number

BL-A52NCvC-35-05/2022 (Mahkamah Sesyen)

Although plaintiff was the registered owner, the court found on the balance of probabilities that the deceased held the property as trustee for the defendants because the defendants substantially paid the mortgage instalments and related outlays; plaintiff failed to prove forgery or that the deceased paid the loans; accordingly plaintiff's claim for possession was dismissed and the defendants' counterclaim succeeded.
21 Oct 2024

Vijayaletchumy A/p Samykannu M. NAGARAJAN A/L MUNISAMY

Citation

BL-12ANCvC-6-05/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BL-12ANCvC-6-05/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The court held that the respondent's registered title is conclusive and indefeasible in the absence of pleaded and proved fraud; the appellant failed to produce title documentation or to plead fraud and could not establish a bare trust sufficient to defeat the registered title, therefore the Sessions Court did not err in striking out the appellant's defence and counterclaim and ordering vacant possession.
21 Oct 2024

Vijayaletchumy A/p Samykannu M. NAGARAJAN A/L MUNISAMY

Citation

BL-12BNCvC-3-05/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BL-12BNCvC-3-05/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Because the respondent was the registered proprietor on the title documents and no fraud or misrepresentation was pleaded or proved, the registered title is indefeasible under the National Land Code (ss.89 and 340); the appellant's allegations of a bare trust and reliance on payment of rates/utilities do not rebut the conclusive effect of registration and the Sessions Court correctly struck out the defence/counterclaim and ordered vacant possession and associated remedies, which the High Court affirmed.
30 Jul 2024

SYARIKAT PERUMAHAN NEGARA BERHAD 1. ) HALUAN MENANG SDN BHD 2. ) COSMIC MASTER DEVELOPMENT SDN. BHD.

Citation

BA-24NCvC-371-03/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-24NCvC-371-03/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The Court found the Plaintiff to be the beneficial owner and D1 to be a bare trustee; the 3rd Power of Attorney was conditional on full repayment by D2 and, given D2's failure to pay (and a subsisting default judgment), the 3rd PA is revocable and declared null and void. To enable completion of the project the Court ordered D1 to execute a fresh irrevocable Power of Attorney in favour of Plaintiff with an indemnity clause and awarded costs against D2.
25 Sept 2023

1. ) MOHD SYAMSUL AKMAR BIN MOHD SUKERI 2. ) MOHD SUKERI BIN ABDUL HAMID 1. ) MOHD NOOR DIN BIN MOHD NOOR 2. ) NORIZAM BINTI MOHAMED NOR

Citation

DA-22NCvC-44-08/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

DA-22NCvC-44-08/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Plaintiffs failed to prove they acquired equitable ownership/bare trust because full purchase price and a registrable transfer were not established; however the court accepted plaintiffs had permission to occupy and that defendants' conduct in forcibly evicting and damaging the property justified restitution of the RM160,000 paid and an award of exemplary damages. Consequently the sale cannot be completed and plaintiffs are entitled to return of payments and punitive compensation.
10 Aug 2023

1. ) EDWARD STANISLAUS DE SILVA 2. ) ANITA SORNAM LEVINS A/P SAMUEL LEVINS 3. ) NOR AZLAN BIN MOHAMAD 4. ) MOHAMAD BIN JAAFAR 5. ) SAMSIAH BINTI ABDUL TALIB 6. ) LEE LIAN YEN 7. ) REVIDHARAN NAIR A/L RAGHAVAN PILLAI 8. ) FEZERLON @ FADZELON

Citation

WA-22NCvC-452-08/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-22NCvC-452-08/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Court held the principal cause of action is for recovery of land (12‑year limitation). The cause of action did not accrue so as to bar the Plaintiffs because no clear and unequivocal refusal by the Defendant to deliver vacant possession occurred until the Defendant applied to enter appearance and file a defence (7.10.2020); thus claims for recovery of land and specific performance are not time‑barred. Liquidated damages claims accrued in 2002/2003 and are statute‑barred (six years). Defendant is bare trustee for Plaintiffs 1–11 who paid in full; Plaintiffs 12–25 hold enforceable equitable rig…
1 Sept 2022

Redzuan Bin Sheikh Ahmad Hidzir Bin Ahmad

Citation

RA-22NCvC-5-11/2018 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

RA-22NCvC-5-11/2018 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Plaintiff failed to prove existence of a binding sale contract, the RM600,000 payments as consideration for a sale to the defendant, and beneficial ownership because critical documentary evidence remained unadmitted and material third‑party witnesses (Astranet Corporation and Ezek Enterprise) were not called; adverse inferences were properly drawn and defendant proved ownership and harm on balance of probabilities; accordingly plaintiff's claims were dismissed and defendant's counterclaim allowed in part with damages and costs.
22 Jul 2022

Ramli bin Dahari 1. ) Mohd Hainuddin bin Subahi 2. ) Mohd Shahindar bin Subahi 3. ) Penghuni-Penghuni 4. ) Syarikat Bekalan Air Selangor Sdn Bhd 5. ) Tenaga Nasional Berhad

Citation

BA-22NCvC-98-03/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-22NCvC-98-03/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

On the balance of probabilities the Defendants proved valid earlier sale agreements, long uninterrupted possession, payment of quit rents, custody of the original Issue Document of Title and bona fide conduct; the Plaintiff lacked knowledge, failed to plead material allegations of fraud and did not produce the original title when procuring registration, so the Plaintiff has no proprietary interest and the Defendants are the beneficial owners; revocation of the Letter of Administration was not granted because relief requires a separate Order 72 application.