The transfer of property was declared void due to forgery, non-compliance with bankruptcy law, and breaches of fiduciary duty by both the co-administrator and the solicitor.

Roz Mawar Rozain JC:

[1] This case concerns serious allegations of fraud, forgery and breach of fiduciary duties in the transfer of a valuable property from the estate of the late Dato' Hj. Noorazman bin Adnan (the deceased) to one of his wives, the First Defendant. The Plaintiff is the son of the deceased borne by the latter's first wife whom he had since divorced. The Plaintiff, a co-administrator of his estate, has brought this action asserting that the First Defendant (the other co-administrator of the deceased's estate), aided by the Second Defendant who is her solicitor, orchestrated an unlawful scheme to transfer the deceased's Changkat Kiara property to the First Defendant through forged documents in violation of the deceased's bankrupt status at the material time.

[2] After a full trial, with witnesses and documentary evidence tendered by both sides, this Court assessed the factual matrix to premise its judgment on the pivotal issues. This case concerned the deceased's Changkat Kiara property held under the title Geran 53065 Lot 60460 Mukim Batu, Daerah Kuala Lumpur. The deceased was adjudicated a bankrupt on 4 January 2011. More than seven years later he had passed away on 30 July 2019. Both the Plaintiff and the First Defendant are the administrators of the deceased's estate.

[3] On 11 July 2019, a Memorandum of Transfer was executed, purportedly transferring the Changkat Kiara property from the deceased to the First Defendant. The Memorandum of Transfer bore the purported signature of the deceased, attested by the Second Defendant.

[4] On 9 October 2020 the Second Defendant issued a Letter of Authorisation bearing the purported signature of the Plaintiff and the First Defendant that authorised the discharge of the charge on the Changkat Kiara property from RHB Bank Berhad. The Second Defendant is the solicitor engaged by the First Defendant.

[5] On 8 January 2021 the Second Defendant presented the Memorandum of Transfer to the Third Defendant for registration, effecting the transfer of the Changkat Kiara property to the First Defendant.

[6] The Plaintiff alleged that the signatures on the Letter of Authorization and the Memorandum of Transfer were forged, and the transfer of the Changkat Kiara property was fraudulent. The Defendants contended that the transfer was valid, and the deceased had intended to transfer the Changkat Kiara property to the First Defendant as a gift.

Assessment By This Court

Issue 1: Whether The Memorandum Of Transfer Is A Valid Instrument For The Transfer Of The Changkat Kiara Property From The Deceased To The First Defendant

[7] Through his own testimony and the cross-examination of the First and Second Defendants, the Plaintiff contended that the Memorandum of Transfer is invalid because the signature of the deceased was forged, and the Second Defendant did not witness the deceased's signature as attested. The Plaintiff argued that the deceased could not have signed the Memorandum of Transfer on 11 July 2019 as he was admitted to the Prince Court Medical Centre on that date and was incapacitated. The Plaintiff asserted the First Defendant's testimony that she witnessed the deceased's execution of the Memorandum of Transfer is inadmissible under the parole evidence rule, as it contradicts the terms of the Memorandum of Transfer itself. The Plaintiff further contended that the non-witnessing of the deceased's signature by the Second Defendant violated s 211 National Land Code ( NLC ), rendering the registration of the Memorandum of Transfer invalid.

[8] The First and Second Defendants argued that the Memorandum of Transfer is valid, and the deceased intended to transfer the Changkat Kiara property to the First Defendant as a gift. The First and Second Defendants asserted that the deceased signed the Memorandum of Transfer on a different date, which is a common conveyancing practice, and the non-contemporaneous dating does not affect the validity of the instrument. The First and Second