COURT OF APPEAL PUTRAJAYA
PENDAFTAR HAKMILIK NEGERI SELANGOR – Appellant
Versus
CAESIUS DEVELOPMENT SDN BHD & ORS AND ANOTHER APPEAL – Respondent
[Civil Appeal Nos: B-01(NCVC)(W)-326-09-2017 & B-01(NCVC)(W)-359-08-2017]
[1] There are two appeals before us. Appeal No: B-01(NCVC)(W)-326-09-2017 (Appeal 326) was filed by Pendaftar Hakmilik Negeri Selangor (PHMS), who was the 7th defendant in the High Court. Appeal No: B-01(NCVC)(W)-359-08- 2017 (Appeal 359) was filed by Chua Kim Hin and Tan Teng Hock who were the 1st and 2nd defendants respectively in the High Court.
[2] The subject matter of the dispute here and below is in regard to a piece of land held under HS(D)85466, PT 24515, Mukim Petaling, Daerah Petaling, Negeri Selangor (the said Land). The 1st respondent in both Appeal 326 and Appeal 359 was the plaintiff in the High Court. The appeals before us were against the decision of the learned High Court Judge who allowed the 1st respondent's claim that the 1st respondent is the true and lawful registered owner of the said Land. In deciding so, the learned High Court Judge found the appellant in Appeal 326 was negligent and in breach of its statutory duty which resulted the 1st respondent to lose the ownership of the said Land to the appellants in Appeal 359.
[3] For ease of reference, parties in these appeals will be referred to as they were in the High Court.
[4] The salient facts of the case can be found in the grounds of judgment of the learned High Court Judge which, for ease of convenience, are reproduced as follows:
"[2] ... The plaintiff is a company incorporated under the Companies Act 1965 and since 1993 is the registered owner of the said Land. It has in its possession the manual IDT of the said Land at all times until today. However on 28 September 2011 a Change of Name pursuant to s 378 of the National Land Code (' NLC ') for the said Land was registered at the land office vide Presentation No: 500056/2011. The application for the change of name was filed by the 3rd defendant and a computerised IDT was issues by the land officer under the name of the 3rd defendant, ie Spec Development & Construction Sdn Bhd. The 3rd defendant then sold and transferred the said Land to the 1st and 2nd defendants vide a sale and purchase agreement dated 2 December 2011 ('the said SPA') for a consideration of sum of RM2,000,000.00. The memorandum of transfer in favour of the 1st and 2nd defendants was registered at the land office on 19 April 2012 vide Presentation No: 38016/2012 and a new computerised IDT was issued to the 1st and 2nd defendants.
[3] Sometime in May 2012, one of the plaintiff's directors received enquiry from a real estate agent asking whether the plaintiff was interested to buy a piece of land, and the description of that land appeared to be similar to the said Land. A land search was then conducted at the land office, and it was then the plaintiff discovered that there was (a) a registration of change of name in the register of title for the said Land from the plaintiff's name to the 3rd defendant's name, and (b) a registration of transfer from the 3rd defendant to the 1st and 2nd defendants. Shocked at the discovery, the plaintiff wrote and complained to the land office, and on 17 May 2012 the Pendaftar Hakmilik Negeri Selangor, the 7th defendant, lodged a Registrar Caveat on the said Land. A police report was also lodged by the plaintiff. The plaintiff subsequently also lodged a private caveat on the said Land. Pursuant to the plaintiff's complaint, the land office then conducted an inquiry pursuant to s 27 of the NLC where both the representative of the plaintiff and the 1st and 2nd defendants were called. However, it appears that the land office inquiry did not solve the issue as to the true ownership of the said Land and hence the filing of this suit by the plaintiff.
[4] The essence of the plaintiff's claim herein is for a declaration that the plaintiff is the true and sole registered owner of the said Land. It is the plaintiff's case that the Change of Name in respect of the said Land from the plaintiff's name to the 3rd defendant's name was fraudulently made and therefore null and void. The 4th, 5t
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.