Gopal Sri Ram JCA:

[1] This is an appeal against the judgment of the High Court at Ipoh, dismissing with costs the appellants' claim against the respondent for several declarations the cumulative effect of which would be to impugn the title of the respondent to the subject land. The facts of this case, made complex by the machinations of the first appellant, have been sufficiently analysed and admirably dealt with by the learned Judge who tried the action. And we must say at once that he has been extremely kind in his review of the first appellant's conduct. We entertain no difficulty in affirming his findings based on the veracity of the witnesses who testified before him and with his conclusion that the appellants ought to fail in the action.

[2] But for the learned Judge's observations upon s 340(4)(b) of the National Land Code, 1965 ('the Code') which, we must say in all fairness to him, did not affect his decision, written reasons are not called for in this case. However, his judgment has since been reported in [1993] 2 MLRH 600, [1993] 3 MLJ 465. And it has been referred to in at least one work upon the subject. See, Teo Keang Sood and Khaw Lake Tee, Land Law in Malaysia, Cases and Commentary, 2nd edn, p 185. In these circumstances, and since our views do not coincide with those of the learned Judge upon the meaning of the provision in question, a written judgment from this Court has become necessary.

[3] In the judgment appealed from, after setting out s 340 of the Code which reads as follows:

340(1) The title or interest of any person or body for the time being registered as proprietor of any land, or in whose name any lease, charge or easement is for the time being registered, shall, subject to the following provisions of this section, be indefeasible.

(2) The title or interest of any such person or body shall not be indefeasible

(a) in any case of fraud or misrepresentation to which the person or body, or any agent of the person or body, was a party or privy; or

(b) where registration was obtained by forgery, or by means of an insufficient or void instrument; or

(c) where the title or interest was unlawfully acquired by the person or body in the purported exercise of any power or authority conferred by any written law.

(3) Where the title or interest of any person or body is defeasible by reason of any of the circumstances specified in sub-section (2)

(a) it shall be liable to be set aside in the hands of any person or body to whom it may subsequently be transferred; and

(b) any interest subsequently granted thereout shall be liable to be set aside in the hands of any person or body in whom it is for the time being vested:

Provided that nothing in this sub-section shall affect any title or interest acquired by any purchaser in good faith and for valuable consideration, or by any person or body claiming through or under such a purchaser.

(4) Nothing in this section shall prejudice or prevent

(a) the exercise in respect of any land or interest of any power of forfeiture or sale conferred by this Act or any other written law for the time being in force, or any power of avoidance conferred by any such law; or

(b) the determination of any title or interest by operation of law.

the learned Judge said:

In my view, it is quite impossible to regard para (b) (the reference here is to s 340(4)(b)) as such another exception to the indefeasibility. For one thing, the words are very vague, viz "operation of law", which mean carrying into effect of the law or working of the law. The scope of the words is practically unlimited, given the ordinary meaning of the words and without their having any further word of limitation. If Counsel's contention is carried to its logical conclusion, the indefeasibility can be destroyed on any legal ground at all. It will then make nonsense of the elaborately described exceptions of fraud, forgery etc. Above all, it will practically destroy the central theme or the foundation of the Torrens system.

[4] With