Back
2025 MarsdenLR 3215
HIGH COURT MALAYA SHAH ALAM
SUNITHA MADHU – Appellant
Versus
PALAYAM NAGAPPAN & ORS – Respondent
[Civil Suit No: 22NCVC-114-03/2020]
The court established that a title obtained through fraud or forgery is defeasible under Section 340 of the National Land Code, and the plaintiff's action was not time-barred due to the discovery of fraud.
Headnote:(A) National Land Code - Section 340 - Fraudulent transfer of land - Plaintiff, as administrator of deceased's estate, sought to recover land fraudulently transferred to third parties - Court found that the Power of Attorney used for transfer was forged, leading to subsequent fraudulent transactions - The title of the third defendant was deemed defeasible due to fraud, and the plaintiff's claim was not time-barred. (Paras 1, 20, 26, 64, 110)
(B) Burden of Proof - The plaintiff bears the burden of proof on a balance of probabilities, particularly in cases of fraud and forgery. (Paras 27, 28)
(C) Indefeasibility of Title - Title obtained through fraud or forgery is not indefeasible under Section 340 of the National Land Code. (Paras 68, 70)
Facts of the case:
The plaintiff, as administrator of her late husband's estate, sought to recover land fraudulently transferred to third parties through a forged Power of Attorney. The fraudulent actions were initiated by the first defendant, who sold the land to the second defendant, who then sold it to the third defendant. (Paras 2, 8, 11, 20)
Findings of Court:
The court found that the Power of Attorney was forged, and the subsequent transfers were fraudulent. The title held by the third defendant was deemed defeasible, and the plaintiff's action was within the limitation period. (Paras 70, 110)
Issues: Whether the Power of Attorney was forged, whether the defendants were complicit in the fraud, and whether the plaintiff's action was time-barred. (Paras 26, 110)
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the Power of Attorney was forged, and the subsequent transactions were fraudulent, thus the title of the third defendant was not indefeasible. The plaintiff's action was not time-barred due to the discovery of fraud. (Paras 70, 110)
Result: The court declared the title held by the third defendant null and void and ordered the registration of the plaintiff as the lawful proprietor of the land.
JUDGMENT
Introduction
[1] The plaintiff's case is but another appalling instance of a landowner being dispossessed of his land by the fraudulent actions of third parties.
[2] The Plaintiff is the administrator of the estate of her late husband, Madhu a/l KV Dharan. She seeks to recover for the estate, a piece of land which was once that of her husband's, but by a series of transactions, is now registered in the name of the 3rd Defendant.
The Plaintiff's Case
[3] The Plaintiff is an Indian national. She was married to Madhu a/l KV Dharan ("Madhu") until his death on 2 April 1998. She is presently residing in India.
[4] In 1993, Madhu purchased a piece of land identified as HSM 530 Lot 7501 Mukim Bukit Raja, District of Petaling, now known as PM 1834, Lot 7501, Tempat Bukit Cherakah, Mukim Bukit Raja, Daerah Petaling, Selangor Darul Ehsan ("said land"). The consideration sum was RM75,000.00. The transfer of land was effected and the land was registered in the name of Madhu on 9 March 1994.
[5] When Madhu passed away, Letters of Administration were granted to the Plaintiff and her mother-in-law on 16 April 2002. The services of solicitors Messrs A. Gnanarajah & Co, were engaged to obtain the Letters of Administration. However, the plaintiff's mother-in-law passed away shortly thereafter and she then became the sole administrator of Madhu's estate.
[6] The first time the Plaintiff was alerted to something amiss with respect to the land was sometime in 2003. Messrs A. Gnanarajah & Co was approached by Messrs Chan Yat Hee & Associates who in its letter of 5 August 2003 intimated that there was an interested purchaser for the said land who wished to execute a sale and purchase agreement with Palayam a/l Nagappan, the holder of a Power of Attorney dated 19 April 1996 ("PA") given by Madhu. However, Messrs A. Gnanarajah & Co was requested to first confirm the genuineness of the signature of Madhu on the said PA. A copy of the PA was attached to the letter.
[7] Messrs A. Gnanarajah & Co responded on behalf of the Plaintiff vide its letter dated 30 September 2003 to strongly dispute the contents of the PA. Upon the advice of her solicitors, the Plaintiff lodged a caveat on 27 January 2004. No further communication was made thereafter, the interested purchaser having presumably abandoned the intended purchase of the said land.
[8] In 2015, the plaintiff's son (PW2) came over from India to conduct a search on the said land at the land office of Petaling. To his shock and dismay, he found out that the said land had been transferred to several parties in succession. The Plaintiff alleges that the transfers were done through a series of fraudulent and/or negligent acts on the part of the Defendants.
[9] In 2017, the Plaintiff and her other son authorized PW2 vide a Power of Attorney dated 21 January 2017 to take all necessary actions in respect of the said land. PW2 then lodged a police report on 24 January 2017 stating that his late father's land had been fraudulently transferred to third parties. The Plaintiff also did the same shortly thereafter.
[10] Pursuant to the police reports, investigations commenced. A Registrar's caveat was entered on the said land on 29 March 2017. The Registrar's caveat remains in place till today.
[11] The acts which led to the registration of the said land in the name of Wonderful Century Properties Sdn Bhd ("D3") ultimately, comprised the following:
(a) the 1st Defendant ("D1") was granted an irrevocable PA by Madhu on 19 April 1994 to deal with the said land;
(b) using the PA, D1 then sold the said land to one Kannan a/l Periapayan ("Kannan") for a consideration sum of RM250,000.00. Parties executed Form 14A dated 6 June 2008 which was prepared and witnessed by Tersaim Lall a/l Sadhu Ram ("D2"). The transfer was registered on 2 September 2008; and
(c) Four months after Kannan was registered as the proprietor, he executed Form 14A in favour of Precious Nest Sdn Bhd on 30 October 2008. The consideration
