SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2015 MarsdenLR 732

FEDERAL COURT PUTRAJAYA
SIA HIONG TEE & ORS – Appellant
Versus
CHONG SU KONG & ORS – Respondent


Table of Content
1. determination of fraudulent transfer impacts ownership validity. (Para 1 , 4 , 7 , 10)
2. arguments regarding bona fide purchasers' rights under registered titles. (Para 12 , 18 , 21)
3. clarification of indefeasibility concepts in relation to fraudulent transactions. (Para 24 , 30 , 33 , 36)
Arifin Zakaria CJ:

Introduction

[1] This is an appeal by the appellants (the defendants in the High Court) against the decision of the Court of Appeal in affirming the decision of the High Court. The Court of Appeal ruled that the title of the appellants is defeasible on the basis that the Power of Attorney that was used as authority to transfer the said land to the appellants is a forged instrument even though the land in question had been registered in the name of the appellants. That being the case, the Court of Appeal held that the appellants could not have acquired a valid title to the land.

Leave To Appeal

[2] This Court had, on 5 December 2012, granted leave to the appellants to appeal against the decision of the Court of Appeal on the following questions of law:

"(i) Whether bona fide purchasers for value and without notice, obtained good title to land immediately upon regis

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top