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

1996 MarsdenLR 2053

LAMIN, ANUAR, GOPAL SRI RAM
KRISHNADAS A/L ACHUTAN NAIR – Appellant
Versus
MANIYAM A/L SAMYKANO – Respondent


Advocates:
Gurbachan Singh (Bachan & Kartar) for the appellants.
DP Vijandran (DP Vijandran & Associates) for the respondent.

JUDGMENTBY: GOPAL SRI RAM JCA

GOPAL SRI RAM JCA (delivering the judgment of the court): This is an appeal against the judgment of the High Court at Ipoh, dismissing with costs the appellants claim against the respondent for several declarations, the cumulative effect of which would be to impugn the title of the respondent to the subject land. The facts of this case, made complex by the machinations of the first appellant, have been sufficiently analysed and admirably dealt with by the learned judge who tried the action. And we must say at once that he has been extremely kind in his review of the first appellants conduct. We entertain no difficulty in affirming his findings based on the veracity of the witnesses who testified before him and with his conclusion that the appellants ought to fail in the action.

But for the learned judges observations upon s 340(4)(b) of the National Land Code 1965 (the Code) which, we must say in all fairness to him, did not affect his decision, written reasons are not called for in this case. However, his judgment has since been reported in Krishnadas & Ors v Maniyam [1993] 3 MLJ 465 . And it has been referred to in at least one work upon the subj

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