Subsequent purchasers must demonstrate good faith and due diligence to claim indefeasibility of title under Section 340(3) of the National Land Code, failing which their title may be deemed defeasible.

JUDGMENT

Ahmad Kamal Md Shahid JCA:

Introduction

[1] This is an appeal by Baskaran A/L Govindasamy (7th Defendant), Ramola A/P P Janardanan (8th Defendant) and Bright Way Holdings Sdn Bhd (the 9th Defendant) against the decision of the High Court dated 30 March 2023 which was made in favour of Chiew Yit Kin (the Plaintiff) in relation to a purported fraudulent land transfer.

[2] The Plaintiff alleged that her vacant land in Damansara Heights (subject land) was transferred to Beyond Opulence Sdn Bhd (the 3rd Defendant) and then to the 7th and 8th Defendants by fraud.

[3] The Plaintiff instituted an action against:

a. Pengarah Tanah Dan Galian Wilayah Persekutuan (the 1st Defendant/land office) for negligence;

b. Kerajaan Malaysia (the 2nd Defendant/Government of Malaysia) for vicarious liability;

c. the 3rd Defendant who was the first transferee of the subject land;

d. Norhasmizi Bin Napi (4th Defendant) and Wan Muhamad Irywan Bin Wan Mohamad Sahini (5th Defendant) who were directors of the 3rd Defendant for fraud;

e. Wan Zaiharatulhasra Binti Hamid (the 6th Defendant/lawyer) who falsely and purportedly attested the Plaintiff's execution of the transfer Form 14A in favour of the 3rd Defendant;

f. the 7th to 8th Defendants/buyers of the subject land for fraud and forgery and obtaining title through a void instrument; and

g. the 9th Defendant who had entered a lien holder's caveat on the subject land.

[4] We have carefully examined the Records of Appeal, and considered the submissions by both parties including the latest supplementary submissions filed by both parties on 17 February 2025 upon request of the 7th to 9th Defendants ie the Appellants in the present appeal, following the latest decision by the Federal Court in Malayan Banking Berhad v. Mohd Affandi Ahmad & Anor; [2024] 6 MLJ 220; [2024] 10 CLJ 501 (Maybank's case). We thank counsel for their comprehensive written submissions and their oral clarification on the issues which were ventilated before this Court .

Background Facts

[5] The Plaintiff was the sole proprietor of the subject land. The original issue document of title (IDT) for the subject land (genuine IDT) had always been and remained with the Plaintiff. At all material times, the Plaintiff never surrendered and/or parted with and/or disposed of the genuine IDT in any manner whatsoever to any third party whosoever.

[6] The nightmare of the Plaintiff began when she was informed by her gardener that the subject land was sold and/or transferred to a new owner. A land search on the subject land and further investigation by the Plaintiff revealed that:

a. the 3rd Defendant entered a private caveat on the subject land through a Form 19B executed by the 4th and 5th Defendants, purportedly because the 3rd Defendant had made a part payment of the purchase price to purchase the subject land from the Plaintiff as the seller;

b. The Plaintiff had purportedly transferred the subject land to the 3rd Defendant, and the title purportedly registered in the 3rd Defendant's name (fraudulent transfer);

c. The Plaintiff had purportedly executed a Form 14A as an instrument for transfer of the subject land in consideration for RM4,300,000.00 (fraudulent Form 14A) by purportedly signing the said document (forged signature);

d. The 6th Defendant had purportedly witnessed and attested the Plaintiff's consent and the forged signature on the fraudulent Form 14A;

e. The 4th and 5th Defendants had executed the fraudulent Form 14A as directors of the 3rd Defendant to purportedly receive the transfer of the subject land in the 3rd Defendant's name;

f. The 1st Defendant registered the title of the subject land in the 3rd Defendant's name upon the presentation of the fraudulent Form 14A by the latter;

g. Thereafter, the 4th and 5th Defendants executed the Form 14A as an instrument for transfer of the subject land to the 7th and 8th Defendants as joint purchasers;

h. About 74 days after the fraudulent transfer, the 3rd Defendant transferred the subject land to the