Registration of land title obtained via forgery or void instruments is indefeasible; compliance with statutory requirements is mandatory.

[1] This case involves problems arising out of the computerisation of titles and the nightmare that can arise if things go awry. The matter was disposed of after a full trial and I reserved judgment till the 31st of January 2012 wherein I found for the plaintiff and made the orders that I did.

[2] Let me turn first to the facts of this case. The primary facts of this case remain in the main undisputed. The Land in question was registered in the name of the plaintiff and held under Lot 1599 located at the 3rd Mile, New Petaling Road (Old Klang Road). The issue Document of Title (exhibit P1) is found at p 1 of Bundle B. The plaintiff had been the Registered Proprietor of Lot 1599 referred to aforesaid since the 21st of May 1982 which was vacant land and had never been encumbered at least whilst the plaintiff remained the Registered Proprietor of Lot 1599 (the said Land). The issue document of title to the said Land namely GM 1270 has been in the possession of the plaintiff and that continues to be the position. In the meanwhile the plaintiff continued to pay the quit rent and receipts were issued to the plaintiff particularly during the period 2001 to 2004. (See Bundle B pp 7, 8, 9, 18 & 19).

[3] The plaintiff continued to be totally unaware of what was transpiring in respect of the said land with the issuing of quit rent receipts in the name of the plaintiff, there was nothing to put the plaintiff on guard that something was amiss.

[4] Sometime in May 2005, when the plaintiff's employee went to the Land Office to pay the quit rent for that year, the plaintiff was shocked to discover, not only that the quit rent had been paid, but that the said land was registered in the name of the 5th defendant. After making a search and lodging a Police Report, the plaintiff instructed its solicitors to bring a discovery action against the 1st defendant and the following was discovered, ie:

(a) The name of the Registered Proprietor of the said Land had initially been altered on the Register to that of the 4th defendant;

(b) The title number was Lot 1599 ( the said Land) was GM 2968 and not GM1270;

(c) There was a transfer of the said Land from the 4th defendant to the 5th defendant sometime in December 2004;

(d) The Register document of title maintained by the 1st defendant still reflects the plaintiff as the Registered Proprietor of the said Land.

(e) The 1st defendant issued a computer printed document of title in Form DK in respect of the said Land purporting to convert the existing document of title GM 1270 to a computer printed document of title.

(f) The 1st defendant issued GM2968 in the name of the 4th defendant on the 25th of June 2004.

[5] The said Land was transferred by the 4th defendant to the 5th defendant who had charged the same to the 6th defendant to finance the purported purchase of the said Land.

[6] The plaintiff now finds itself in a position whilst it holds the original issue document of title to the said Land by virtue of the duplicate Title and the computerised title issued by the 1st defendant, the said Land was now registered in the name of the 5th defendant and charged to the 6th defendant.

[7] To my mind the pivot of the plaintiff ' case is whether when the duplicate title was purportedly issued to the 4th defendant was void pursuant to s 340(2) (c) of the National Land Code and the transfer of the said Land to the 5th defendant was by means of an insuffic