Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Transfer of title

Legal area

Court

3 Jul 2025

SHEELA A/P GEORGE 1. ) RADZALI BIN AHMAD KOLDI 2. ) MAYBANK ISLAMIC BERHAD

Citation

BA-22NCvC-529-12/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-22NCvC-529-12/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The 2nd Defendant satisfied the threshold for striking out under Order 18 r 19(1)(a),(b) and/or (d): the pleadings disclose no reasonable cause of action against the bank because the duty to transfer title did not lie with the bank, the bank validly chose security (private caveat), the Plaintiff's authorities were distinguishable, and the claim was therefore properly struck out.
24 Jun 2025

XXXX PENDAFTAR HAKMILIK WILAYAH PERSEKUTUAN, KUALA LUMPUR

Citation

W-01(IM)(NCvC)-646-10/2024 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Court

IM
Case number

W-01(IM)(NCvC)-646-10/2024 (Mahkamah Rayuan)

The Court set aside the High Court's transfer order because the sealed order of 29.12.2009 did not direct transfer or registration in the name of Semantan Estate; that order only recognized a beneficial interest and entitlement to mesne profits, and Semantan Estate did not seek clarification or a consequential order at the material time; accordingly a transfer under s 417 NLC was not properly made and must be set aside.
24 Jun 2025

PENDAFTAR HAKMILIK WILAYAH PERSEKUTUAN, KUALA LUMPUR XXXX

Citation

W-01(NCvC)(A)-519-08/2024 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Court

NCvC
Case number

W-01(NCvC)(A)-519-08/2024 (Mahkamah Rayuan)

The High Court's order compelling the Registrar of Titles to transfer and register the subject land to Semantan Estate was set aside because the sealed 29.12.2009 order did not direct transfer, Semantan Estate did not seek clarification or exercise the implied liberty to apply for a consequential transfer at the material time, and retention of a beneficial interest alone does not confer a right to registration; accordingly the s417 transfer was unjustified and must be set aside.
6 Mar 2025

GLENN FAUSTINN ASIDAZ Selvi @ Kupamah A/p Subramaniam (Disaman dalam kapasiti Pentadbir dan Pemegang Amanah Harta Pusaka Sundarasamy A/L Arockiasamy (No.K/P: 601022-08-6719/ 6068728)( si mati)

Citation

BA-22NCvC-507-12/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-22NCvC-507-12/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Court found, on the balance of probabilities and supported by comparisons with admitted genuine signatures and the defendant's own admissions, that signatures on the transfer documents were not the deceased's and were forged; conversely the will dated 11.8.2004 was validly executed and proved by attesting witness Ganesan and by the defendant's admission as to the testator's signature. Consequently the transfer(s) were void for fraud/forgery, the earlier grant of administration to Selvi was cancelled, and probate and declaration of sole executor/beneficiary were granted to Glenn with orders to…
25 Sept 2024

1. ) SITI HAWA @ ASIAH BINTI YAACOB 2. ) HILMAN BIN ADNAN 3. ) ZAMILAH BINTI ADNAN 4. ) ZAWAWI BIN ADNAN 5. ) ZAIDI BIN ADNAN 6. ) ZAINAB BINTI ADNAN 7. ) ZAITUN BINTI ADNAN BAHARUN BIN ZAKARIA

Citation

DA-22NCvC-47-09/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

DA-22NCvC-47-09/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Form 14A was executed at the deceased's house and not attested before a Land Administrator as required by s211(1) and Fifth Schedule para 3 of the National Land Code for Malay Reserve land; non-compliance rendered the instrument void/insufficient under s340(2)(b), registration pursuant thereto is void and must be set aside under s340(3); plaintiffs failed to prove fraud/undue influence due to absence of the key witness (1st plaintiff) but succeeded on invalidity of the instrument; costs awarded to plaintiffs.
29 Jan 2024

BIOCOSLAB MANUFACTURING SDN. BHD 1. ) GOLDEN AFFINITY DEVELOPMENT SDN. BHD 2. ) TAN WAE LENG 3. ) CHENG & CO CORPORATE RECOVERY SDN. BHD.

Citation

BA-24NCvC-1558-08/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-24NCvC-1558-08/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The court dismissed the plaintiff's originating summons and refused to order specific performance because the court accepted that the court‑appointed liquidator was entitled to require and charge verification/remuneration fees where the wound‑up company had no funds and where such fees were a legitimate method to avoid depletion of company assets; the plaintiff was not entitled to compel transfer absent compliance with the liquidator's lawful requirements; defendants' counterclaim was dismissed without costs.
26 May 2023

1. ) KGS CONSORTIUM SDN. BHD. 2. ) CHOO CHEE HAUR NORTHERN AGRITRACK SDN. BHD.

Citation

JA-12ANCvC-16-09/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

JA-12ANCvC-16-09/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The Sessions Court's findings were not plainly wrong; Plaintiff who paid for 138 containers obtained legal title under s19 Sale of Goods Act 1957 absent any retention of title clause; consequential injunctive and proprietary reliefs were proper; Defendants failed to prove entitlement to RM60,000 balance and RM481,548 services claim due to lack of admissible/original evidence; lifting of the corporate veil against D2 was justified on facts. The appeal is dismissed.
17 Mar 2023

1. ) TANG AH LIK @ TAN TEIK YOUNG 2. ) TAN AH LEK @ TAN TIEK HOO 3. ) TAN TEIK LIANG 4. ) TAN TEK LENG 5. ) TAN TEIK CHIANG 6. ) TAN POH HENG TAN AH BA

Citation

PA-22NCvC-102-04/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

PA-22NCvC-102-04/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Plaintiffs failed to prove on the balance of probabilities that the 2003 Agreement was forged; credible oral evidence from witnesses who attested to signing outweighed the expert's findings, and plaintiffs also failed to join the owners of sold lots as parties; therefore their claims fail and are dismissed with costs.
12 Dec 2022

XXXX XXXX PIHAK KETIGA XXXX

Citation

WA-22NCVC-69-02/2017 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-22NCVC-69-02/2017 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Because Defendan Pertama made full payment of RM170,000 and plaintiffs agreed to re‑transfer the disputed property, the principal cause of action no longer existed; the counterclaim was interrelated and dependent on that principal claim and thus ceased to be necessary to determine; the discontinuance was bona fide and not prejudicial, therefore the discontinuance was allowed and the counterclaim struck out with nominal costs to the second defendant.
23 Dec 2021

1. SEE CHOO PHAN 2. SEE CHU GEK 3. SEE CHOO PHAN (as Trustees of the Estate of the Deceased See Kim Keock, according to the Letter for Probate in the High Court Muar Originating Summons No. 32NCvC-96-05/2015 dated 30.6.2015) 4. SEE CHU GEK

Citation

JB-22NCVC-66-10/2019 (ENCLOSURE 61) (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

ENCLOSURE 61
Case number

JB-22NCVC-66-10/2019 (ENCLOSURE 61) (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The court exercised its unfettered discretion to grant a stay of execution pending disposal of the appeal but only on specific protective terms: preservation of status quo for immovable and other assets, and a ring‑fenced bank guarantee of RM700,000 to be furnished by the defendants within 21 days; breach to attract contempt — because these terms adequately protect the plaintiffs' entitlement while preventing the appeal from being rendered nugatory.