The court emphasized the rectification of registration errors under the National Land Code is permissible when no fraud is involved, reaffirming the principle of rightful ownership based on earlier title documents.

Introduction

[1] This is an appeal by the Appellants (Plaintiffs) against the decision of the High Court dated 9 April 2021 in which the epicentre of the disputes between the Plaintiffs and the Respondents/Defendants is evolving around the land held under GM 6026, Lot 5633, Negeri Selangor, Daerah Hulu Langat, Mukim Hulu Langat ("Lot 5633") whereby there are two issued documents of title issued for the same plot of land.

[2] The High Court had dismissed the Plaintiffs' claim and allowed the counterclaim of 4th respondent (7th defendant) and ordered as follows:

"Maka adalah diperintahkan bahawa tuntutan balas defendan ketujuh adalah dibenarkan seperti berikut:

1. Satu perintah pengisytiharan bahawa hartanah tersebut masih kepunyaan defendan ketujuh;

2. Satu pengisytiharan bahawa suratan hak milik kepunyaan dipegang oleh defendan ketujuh iaitu GM 566, Lot 5633 Negeri Selangor, Daerah Hulu Langat "Hakmilik Februari 2016" adalah sah di sisi undang-undang;

3. Satu pengisytiharan bahawa suratan hak milik kepunyaan dipegang oleh plaintif-plaintif iaitu GM 6026, Lot 5633, Negeri Selangor, Daerah Hulu Langat "Hakmilik September 2016" adalah tidak sah di sisi undang-undang;

4. Satu perintah bahawa Hakmilik September 2016 yang didaftarkan di bawah nama plaintif-plaintif diserahkan oleh plaintif-plaintif kepada Defendan keempat dalam tujuh (7) hari dari tarikh penghakiman ini untuk pembatalan.

5. Satu injunksi mandatori bahawa defendan-defendan keempat sehingga keenam, secara bersama atau berasingan mengambil segala langkah yang diperlukan dan membuat memorial yang mencukupi untuk mengefekkan pembatalan hakmilik September 2016 dan mengefekkan hakmillikan hartanah tersebut berpihak kepada defendan ketujuh menurut Hakmilik Februari 2016;

6. Satu perintah pengisytiharan bahawa jumlah pampasan RM1,907,620.00 yang dibayar kepada defendan ketujuh adalah sah dan dilakukan menurut Akta Pengambilan Tanah 1960 kerana defendan ketujuh merupakan tuan punya berdaftar dan benefisial hartanah tersebut;

7. Satu perintah bahawa plaintif-plaintif menyerahkan milikan kosong hartanah tersebut kepada defendan ketujuh dalam masa (7) hari dari tarikh penghakiman ini;

8. Kos sebanyak RM40,000.00 dibayar oleh plaintif-plaintif kepada defendan ketujuh; dan

9. Kos sebanyak RM5,000.00 dibayar oleh defendan-defendan keempat sehingga keenam kepada defendan ketujuh."

[3] The Plaintiffs are aggrieved by the decision and hence appeal against Fourth to 7th defendants. The 7th defendant also filed cross appeal after being dissatisfied with the decision of the learned Judicial Commisioner and applies to this Court to vary the decision of the High Court. The Reliefs sought by the 7th defendant against the Appellants as in encl 11 are follows:

(a) Declaration order related to trespass to land (encroachment); and

(b) Damages as a result of trespass to land (encroachment) for an amount of RM145,530.00 or whichever amount is assessed by this Court.

[4] We heard the appeal on 1 September 2023 and now give our decision on 22 November 2023. Having duly considered the appeal records and submissions of Counsel, we unanimously decided to allow the Plaintiffs' appeal and dismiss the 7th defendant's cross appeal. Our reasons for allowing the appeal now follow.

[5] For convenience, we shall refer to the parties by the titles assigned to them in the High Court. The Appellants shall be referred to collectively as "Plaintiffs". The Respondents shall