COURT OF APPEAL PUTRAJAYA
HASSAN HUSSIN – Appellant
Versus
TENGKU AZHAR ADIB T YUSUF – Respondent
[Civil Appeal No: D-02(NCVC)(W)-55-01-2015]
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. validity of property sale and obligations of parties. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 2. defendant's denial of agreement and alleged fraud. (Para 7 , 8) |
| 3. critical reflection on previous findings and evidence. (Para 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14) |
| 4. legal principles surrounding proof of ownership. (Para 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19) |
| 5. evaluation of evidence leading to ownership conclusion. (Para 20 , 21 , 22 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29) |
| 6. trustee obligations and sale agreements. (Para 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34) |
| 7. need for evidence support and judicial review principles. (Para 35 , 36 , 37 , 38) |
Idrus Harun JCA:
Introduction
[1] The appellant brought an action against the respondent seeking, inter alia, a declaration that a piece of land known as Lot 7002, PM 330 situated at Kg Cherang Ruku, Jajahan Pasir Puteh, Kelantan ("the land") had been sold by the respondent to the appellant and that the land was held by the respondent as a bare trustee. The High Court dismissed the appellant's claim. The appellant appealed to this Court. We allowed the appeal, stated that we would give our reasons in writing later and this we now do.
The Claim
[2] The material facts relating to the claim are clearly set out in the statement of claim to reveal at the outset that the respondent was the registered owner of the land which was previously described as Lot PT 5819, HS(M) 153, Kg Cherang Ruku, Mukim Cherang Ruku, Jajahan Pasir Puteh, Kelantan. The statement of claim next discloses that on 5 December 2001, the respondent sold the land to the appellant who made full payment for the purchase price to the respondent on the same day. However, the land was not transferred to the appellant immediately after the sale and purchase transaction as the same was subject to a restriction in interest which prohibited any transfer of ownership of the land for a period of 10 years from the date the land title was issued. Thus at the time of the sale, both the appellant and the respondent agreed that when the said period of restriction expired and a final title was issued, the respondent would execute all the relevant documents to enable the land to be transferred to the appellant.
[3] For the purpose of the sale, the respondent executed a Power of Attorney (exh P1) on the same date the land was sold, giving the appellant full power to deal with the land. The respondent had also executed Form 14A (exh P2) for the transfer of the land to the appellant and surrendered the original qualified land title (exh P3) to the appellant. Since then, the land little had been in the appellant's custody.
[4] The respondent in fact did not occupy the land since 2001. When the restriction ceased to have effect in 2011, the appellant tried to trace the respondent to secure his signature on the relevant documents for the purpose of transferring the land to the appellant but to no avail. The appellant moreover, made an enquiry at the Land Office of the District of Pasir Puteh but was informed that the final title had already been issued in 2008 which title was collected by the respondent. A private caveat was consequently lodged on the register document of title in respect of the land by the appellant. However, the appellant was served with a notice for removal of the caveat circa on February 2013 applied by the respondent as he intended to transfer the land to another person.
[5] The appellant further avers that after he had made the full payment for the purchase of the land and the respondent had executed the Power of Attorney in favour of the appellant, the respondent no longer had any right and was not entitled to the land. Accordingly, the respondent held the land as a bare trustee.
[6] In his claim, the appellant seeks a declaration that the land was sold by the respondent to the appellant and that the same was held by the respondent as a bare trustee. In addition, the appellant prays for an order that the caveat be extended, the respondent be restrained and prohibited from tr
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.