The court emphasized the necessity for valid documentation and original owners' participation in property transactions to uphold ownership claims.

[1] The appellant's (defendant) appeal against the decision of the learned High Court Judge granting relief without strict proof of the respondent's case and, very importantly, without exhibiting related documents of title and/or evidence of the original owners of the property came up for hearing on 27 October 2014 and upon hearing, we adjourned it for further submission on 13 February 2015, and upon hearing the parties we allowed the appeal.

Preliminaries And Jurisprudence

[2] This case relates to sub sale of property by sale and purchase agreement and deed of assignment relating to an estate. In such cases, it is an elementary principle that the original owner of the estate who was granted the title to the property and/or successors in the title needs to be called and the relevant titles need to be exhibited, etc. It is also crucial to note that in any deed of assignment to pass the beneficial interest of the property to any other person, the master title holder must endorse the deed of assignment. A deed of assignment without such assignment is bad in law and will not pass any right or interest relating to the purchaser's interest in the portion of the estate (see Civil Law Act 1956 ; Malayan Banking Berhad v. Worthy Builders Sdn Bhd & Ors, 2015 MarsdenLR 1776 ). It must also be noted that the law does not readily allow fragmentation of an estate without the approval of the relevant authorities (see Damai Jaya Realty Sdn Bhd v. Pendaftar Hakmilik Tanah, Selangor ; [2015] 2 MLJ 768 ; [2015] 5 AMR 381 ).

[3] In the instant case, the learned trial judge had taken cognisance that there was no sufficient evidence produced by the respondent, but nevertheless went on to decide and grant part of the prayers. Such an approach breaches the principles of civil litigation and in consequence we were constrained to allow the appeal, not because we were impressed by the appellant's case, but for the fact that the appellant and respondent did not have valid documents to sustain their position as beneficial owners of the property according to law.

[4] The learned judge had documented the facts and reasons to reach the decision. We take the view that Court's time will be much saved by reproducing the brief judgment and set out our grounds.

[5] The brief judgment of the learned trial judge reads as follows:

"This is a classical case where most of the important witnesses from both sides are not before the Court to give their oral testimonies either they have passed away or could not be traced since the filing of the suit before the matter is heard.

Be that as it may, the Court will have to make do with whatever evidence available whether documentary or oral testimonies of witnesses.

The plaintiff had called five witnesses including the plaintiff himself whereas the defendant had called two witnesses before closing respective case.

The plaintiff's case can briefly be narrated as stated in the statement of claim as follows namely:

At all material time, Ng Kim Chuan had sold 311.52 acres of land known as Lot 746, CT 4828 Mukim Tg Dua Belas, Daerah Kuala Langat, Negeri Selangor to 81 purchasers (hereinafter called 'the said land'). One of the 81 purchasers was Ong Tai Bak who purchased 2 1/2 acres of Sub-Lot 46 (hereinafter called 'the half share of Lot 46) from Ng Kim Chuan via Sale and Purchase Agreement dated 17th July 1978 (hereinafter called 'the 1st S&P'). Subsequently, Ong Tai Bak sold the half share of Lot 46 to the plaintiff via S&P dated 18 July 1978 (hereinafter called 'the 2nd S&P'). The plaintiff had paid quit rents for the half share of Lot 46 since 1982 and thereafter had cleared the said half share and developed it by planti