An irrevocable power of attorney allows for representation but does not transfer proprietary interest; valid contracts and consent are essential for property transfer.

[1] The dispute in this action is in respect of a piece of land now known as HS(D) 12931 Lot 12563, Bandar Ampang, Daerah Ulu Langat, Selangor ("the disputed Land"). At the time of the filing of the suit, it is registered in the name of the 2nd defendant and charged to the 3rd defendant's Bank. The plaintiff had constructed a two storey brick house on one half of the disputed Land.

[2] The 1st defendant was the original registered owner of the disputed Land. The plaintiff's claim is that he was the beneficial owner of the disputed Land by virtue of the following reasons:-

(a) On 23 September 2008, by virtue of an irrevocable power of attorney ("the POA") for valuable consideration, the 1st defendant had appointed the plaintiff as his attorney in respect of the disputed Land of which a full payment of the same had been made to the 1st defendant.

(b) Despite the fact that the disputed Land was beneficially owned by the plaintiff, the 1st defendant had, to the detriment of the plaintiff, transferred the disputed Land to 2nd defendant.

(c) Since the 1st defendant had completely disposed of his interests in the disputed Land by virtue of the POA, the 1st defendant had no capacity to execute the memorandum of transfer ("MOT") dated 17 October 2014 in favour of the 2nd defendant, and any such attempt to purportedly transfer to same to any third party would be tainted with illegality and would have no legal effect.

(d) Since the purported transfer of the disputed Land from the 1st defendant to the 2nd defendant was null and void, the attendant consequences would be the legal charge created in favour of the 3rd defendant and presented on 17 December 2014 would be equally null and void.

[3] In view of the nature of the dispute, and at the instance of the plaintiff, the Registrar of Titles, Selangor had lodged a registrar's caveat on the disputed Land vide presentation no 17407/2015 dated 6 April 2015.

The History Of The Disputed Land

[4] In order to appreciate the nature of the plaintiff's claim, it is necessary to go through a brief history of the disputed Land. The disputed Land was originally held under the temporary occupation licence ("TOL") as provided for under s 68 of the National Land Code, 1965 , ("NLC") in the name of the 1st defendant's father.

[5] At a certain material time, the 1st defendant had made the necessary application to the Hulu Langat Land Office ("the Land Office") for the disputed Land be alienated to him with the category of land use be that of residential. It later became apparent to both the 1st defendant and the plaintiff that before the issuance of the qualified title in respect of the disputed Land, the 1st defendant had to make certain payment in relation to the premium and other land charges.

[6] The plaintiff and his son, Kaffiddudin [SP-8] together with the 1st defendant had attended to the Land Office to settle all the pending payments sometime in January, 2007 in order for the qualified title in respect of the disputed Land to be issued. After several months, there was no indication that the qualified title of the disputed Land would be issued by the Land Office. In order to safeguard his interests in the disputed Land, the plaintiff had purportedly entered into two separate sales and purchase agreements in July ("SPA1") and August 2007 ("SPA2") to formalise the purchase of the same. According to the plaintiff, he had paid a sum of RM10,000 and RM25,000 in respect of the SPA1 and SPA2 respectively.

[7] The executed copies of both the SPA1 and SPA2 were never exhed in court in the course