Subsequent purchasers may gain indefeasibility of title if acquired in good faith, even if earlier transactions were tainted by fraud.

JUDGMENT

Rozana Ali Yusoff J:

A. Introduction

[1] The Plaintiff claims against the Defendants for the following reliefs:

[a] A declaration that the Plaintiff as the remaining sole trustee of Chin Koong Tze Temple, is the valid trustee of the land held under Geran Lot 1795, GM 60, Mukim Cheras, District of Hulu Langat Selangor bearing address at Batu 12, Jalan Sungai Besi - Cheras (the land).

[b] A declaration that the transfer of the land from the Plaintiff to the 1st Defendant and subsequently to the 2nd and 3rd Defendants and the charge by the 4th Defendant are void ab initio.

[c] An Order that the endorsement of the transfer on the Issue Document of Title of the land to the 1st, 2nd and 3rd Defendants and the Charge to the 4th Defendant are cancelled.

[d] An Order that the 5th Defendant register the Plaintiff as the valid trustee of the land within 21 days from the date of the Order.

[e] An Order that the damages be assessed against the 3rd Defendant and thereafter payable to the Plaintiff to account for the 3rd Defendant use of the land.

[f] General damages.

[g] Interest and Costs.

B. Background Facts

[2] The Title of the land was registered under the name of five (5) Trustees, of which the Plaintiff was one of them. The Trustees were appointed pursuant to a Deed of Trust dated 20 June 1967 and were appointed to hold the land on trust for the society for the purpose of building a temple on the land. The other four (4) Trustees were:

[a] Lim Swee Leong who died on 6 November 1998

[b] Teh Swee Boon who died on 30 August 1978

[c] Teo Hong Tua who died on 18 October 1973

[d] Yong Seong Ying who died 23 October 1967

[3] The Plaintiff is the sole remaining trustee and at all the time kept the original title with him. The original title was produced at the trial on 15 December 2020. Sometime in April 2010, the Plaintiff notice a construction and demolition works being carried out on the land and he immediately warned the construction workers to stop work. The Plaintiff continued to visit the land and put a marking barrier to show that the land was privately owned.

[4] Sometime in July 2010, the marking barrier were removed and construction resumed. The Plaintiff was informed by the workers that the owner of the land had allowed them to proceed with the construction work. The Plaintiff requested his lawyer to investigate the ownership of the land. On 30 August 2010, the Plaintiff was given a copy of the search report that stated the 3rd Defendant is the owner of the land and it was charged to 4th Defendant.

[5] The search report also showed that prior to the 3rd Defendant ownership, the land was first transferred from the Trustees to the 1st Defendant on 12 March 2009 for a sum of RM2 million (1st Transfer). On 16 June 2009, the land was transferred from the 1st Defendant to the 2nd Defendant for a consideration of RM2.6 million (2nd Transfer). On 1 December 2009, the 2nd Defendant transferred the land to the 3rd Defendant for a sum of RM3,161,584.80 (3rd Transfer). The land was then charged by the 3rd Defendant to the 4th Defendant.

[6] On 24 October 2010, the Plaintiff lodged a police report about the fraudulent transfers. However, there has been no response or feedback from the police since the report was lodged. On 4 March 2011, the Plaintiff lodge a caveat on the land pending police investigation. Five (5) years later, on 4 March 2016, the Plaintiff did another search and found the 3rd Defendant was still the registered owner of the land and there is no change of the express conditions of the land. On 25 October 2016, the Malaysian Bar confirmed the solicitor who is in charge of the 1st transfer was not authorized to practice since 1 July 2004 and was struck off the rolls of Advocates and Solicitors since 23 July 2005. On 21 November 2016, the Plaintiff discovered that the Court Order dated 9 November 2016 issued under Kuala Lumpur High Court Civil Suit No. S-24-3201-2008 for the 1st Transfer did not exist. The Plaintiff also discovered the 2nd