Registered owner's title under the Torrens system is indefeasible unless established fraud directly related to the transfer.

Prologue

[1] Let me begin at the beginning. The plaintiffs had come to this court to seek judicial recognition on two documents which had a far reaching impact on their rights to a piece of land now known as PM2952 Lot 2333, Tanjung Ketum, Mukim Sungai Panjang, Sabak Bernam Selangor with an area measuring 1.4913 hectares ("the disputed land") which they claimed to be rightfully theirs. The disputed land is now registered in the name of all the defendants herein according to the irrespective shares.

[2] It is unfortunate that the dramatis personae, if I may, in respect of the documents sought to be enforced in this court, had long gone and dead with the exceptions of the first plaintiff and SP1. In the circumstances, we were deprived of the benefit of the maker, the signatories of the documents, coming to the court to give their version of the case.

The Background

[3] The first plaintiff is one of the alleged two donees in the disputed Irrevocable Power of Attorney dated 27th January 1987 ("DIPOA") the donor of which was allegedly one Omar bin Haji Abdullah ("Omar"), the late father of all the defendants, in respect of the disputed land. The title deed of the disputed land was in the custody of the first plaintiff. As to how did it get into her possession will be discussed later.

[4] The second plaintiff is one of the children of one Mastor Lani bin Anbali ("Mastor Lani"), also deceased, who is filing this action in his capacity as the administrator of the estate of the deceased. The late Mastor Lani who died on 26 October 1992, was the other alleged donee in respect of the DIPOA. In any case ID-9 (which by consent of both parties at the submission stage is converted to P-9), which is Form F under the Small Estates (Distribution) Act 1955 in respect of the estate of Mastor Lani specifically included the disputed land as part of the immovable property to be distributed amongst the beneficiaries.

[5] Omar died intestate on 1 October 1992. After his death, there were two separate applications to distribute the estate of Omar under the Small Estates (Distribution) Act 1955 . The first application was made by the second defendant and it was heard and disposed of on 21 February 1994 by the Land Administrator, at Sabak Bernam. At the material time, the disputed land was not part of the distribution order.

[6] It was the second application made by the third defendant some eight years later that involved the disputed land. According to SP2, the Assistant Director of Small Estate Unit, Selangor (Barat Laut), who heard and disposed of the matter on 13 March 2012, the second application was in fact an "ulang bicara itu bagi menyelesaikan harta-harta simati yang tertinggal pada perbicaraan yang pertama".

[7] In other words, the third defendant had filed in the second application solely in respect of the disputed land which was not included at the first hearing. As to the reason why it was left out at the first hearing will be addressed to at the later part if this judgment (infra para 84).

[8] SP2, having been satisfied that all the beneficiaries of the estate had agreed between themselves, made an order of distribution in respect of the disputed land according to the law of faraid in that the same be transmitted to the defendants according to the following respective shares:-

(i) The 2nd defendant - 1/8 share

(ii) The 4th defendant - 1/8 share

(iii) The 1st defendant - 2/8 share

(iv) The 3rd defendant - 2/8 share

(v) The 5th defendant - (2)/8 share.

[9] Pursuant to this order m