Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Indefeasibility of title (s.340 nlc)

Legal area

Court

23 Jul 2025

Hallifni Binti Ali ZARINA BINTI AZIZ

Citation

KA-22NCvC-8-02/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

KA-22NCvC-8-02/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The court accepted the Trust Agreement as authentic and binding; the 1985 transaction was a trust arrangement not an outright sale; equitable obligations devolved on the heir under s.26 Specific Relief Act and/or a constructive trust arose; the Defendant's registration via pusaka was tainted by nondisclosure and s.340 NLC indefeasibility did not protect her; limitation defence failed; Plaintiff entitled to specific performance and transfer of the property.
23 Jul 2025

Hallifni Binti Ali ZARINA BINTI AZIZ

Citation

KA-22NCvC-8-02/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

KA-22NCvC-8-02/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The Trust Agreement of 27.11.1985 was authentic, admissible and created binding trust obligations; the 1985 transaction was in substance a trust (or at least gave rise to a constructive trust) funded by the Plaintiff and it was unconscionable for the Defendant to retain the Property; the Defendant's title obtained via pusaka was tainted by non-disclosure and is defeasible under s.340(2) NLC; limitation defence was not pleaded and the claim accrued on dispossession, so the Plaintiff's action is timely; therefore the Plaintiff is entitled to specific performance and transfer of title.
2 Dec 2024

Sunitha Madhu [Membawa Tindakan Ini Sebagai Pentadbir Sah Harta Pusaka Simati (Madhu A/l K.v. Dharan (No. K/p: 550403-10-6085)] 1. ) PALAYAM A/L NAGAPPAN 2. ) Tersaim Lall A/l Sadhu Ram [Yang Beramal Sebagai Peguambela Dan Peguamcara Di Tet

Citation

BA-22NCvC-114-03/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-22NCvC-114-03/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

On the balance of probabilities the court found the Power of Attorney was forged and D1 complicit; D2 was involved and at least negligent (and facilitated fraud); Kannan's title was defeasible because registration was obtained by means of a forged instrument; D3 failed to prove it purchased in good faith for valuable consideration and so is not protected by proviso to s.340(3); D4 breached statutory and common law duties in registering transfers and handling caveat matters; Plaintiff's claim was timely (fraud discovered 2015). Therefore the court set aside the registration in D3 and ordered r…
23 Sept 2024

OTHMAN BIN LOPOK 1. ) INDOK HADIJAH BINTI LAT JANNIK 2. ) TAN TEK CHUAN 3. ) ONG BING REN 4. ) JAMIAN BIN DOLAH 5. ) PENTADBIR TANAH DAERAH PONTIAN 6. ) Kerajaan Negeri Johor

Citation

JA-21NCvC-9-02/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

JA-21NCvC-9-02/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

On the balance of probabilities the Power of Attorney dated 04.06.2018 was forged (forensic evidence accepted, defendants produced no rebutting expert); transfers executed under that PA are void and registration is defeasible under s.340(2) NLC; D2 and D3 are not protected as bona fide purchasers because the instrument was void and final payment was not completed (cheque stopped); transfers to D2 and D3 are set aside, title restored to plaintiff, limited restitution ordered (plaintiff to return RM50,000), exemplary damages and costs awarded against D1 and D4, and counterclaim by D2/D3 dismiss…
28 Feb 2022

Mohd Affandi Bin Ahmad 1. ) PEMBANGUNAN TANAH DAN PERUMAHAN SDN. BHD 2. ) Q-DEVELOPMENT SDN BHD 3. ) MALAYAN BANKING BERHAD

Citation

JA-22NCvC-190-11/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

JA-22NCvC-190-11/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

On the balance of probabilities the Plaintiffs proved that predecessors paid full purchase price and were in possession, rendering the First Defendant a bare/constructive trustee; therefore the First Defendant's registered title was defeasible under s.340(4)(b) NLC; the Second Defendant failed to prove it was a bona fide purchaser for valuable consideration and thus its title to Lots 97 and 716 is set aside; charges in favour of the Third Defendant deriving from the Second Defendant are likewise defeasible; contemporaneous ledgers and receipts were admissible and credible under Evidence Act p…
10 Jan 2022

MERCU PUSU DEVELOPMENT SDN BHD SETARA JAYA SDN BHD

Citation

WA-22NCvC-202-04/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-22NCvC-202-04/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The Court accepted the plaintiff's valuer evidence as the reliable measure of market rent because the valuer was qualified, had affirmed responsibility by statutory declaration and gave oral evidence; the defendant did not produce any expert valuation to rebut or validly challenge the methodology or comparables; procedural non-compliance with Order 40A r.3 was a curable irregularity in the interests of justice and did not preclude admissibility. Accordingly market rental fixed at RM87,338.28/month and plaintiff awarded assessed rentals (from 04.06.2019 limited start date), VR cost, interest a…
14 Jul 2021

Rokiah binti Amat 1. Pembangunan Tanah dan Perumahan Sdn Bhd 2. Syed Husain bin Junid

Citation

J-02(NCvC)(W)-1586-08/2018 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Court

NCvC
Case number

J-02(NCvC)(W)-1586-08/2018 (Mahkamah Rayuan)

Substitution under Order 15 r.7(1) was valid; on the facts appellant proved on balance that the SPA was valid, full purchase price was paid and purchaser entered possession; the 2nd respondent had contractual obligation under clause 4 to procure/ensure title was registered to purchaser and breached that obligation when individual title was registered in the 1st respondent's name; equitable proprietary interest arose in favour of purchaser and both respondents held the property on trust such that specific performance/transfer reliefs in paragraph 23(1) and (2) are warranted; cause of action ac…

Malaysia Case Law

Hallifni Binti Ali ZARINA BINTI AZIZ

Hallifni Binti Ali ZARINA BINTI AZIZ

Sunitha Madhu [Membawa Tindakan Ini Sebagai Pentadbir Sah Harta Pusaka Simati (Madhu A/l K.v. Dharan (No. K/p: 550403-10-6085)] 1. ) PALAYAM A/L NAGAPPAN 2. ) Tersaim Lall A/l Sadhu Ram [Yang Beramal Sebagai Peguambela Dan Peguamcara Di Tet

OTHMAN BIN LOPOK 1. ) INDOK HADIJAH BINTI LAT JANNIK 2. ) TAN TEK CHUAN 3. ) ONG BING REN 4. ) JAMIAN BIN DOLAH 5. ) PENTADBIR TANAH DAERAH PONTIAN 6. ) Kerajaan Negeri Johor

Mohd Affandi Bin Ahmad 1. ) PEMBANGUNAN TANAH DAN PERUMAHAN SDN. BHD 2. ) Q-DEVELOPMENT SDN BHD 3. ) MALAYAN BANKING BERHAD

MERCU PUSU DEVELOPMENT SDN BHD SETARA JAYA SDN BHD

Rokiah binti Amat 1. Pembangunan Tanah dan Perumahan Sdn Bhd 2. Syed Husain bin Junid