Back
COURT OF APPEAL PUTRAJAYA
MALAYAN PRODUCE COMPANY SENDIRIAN BERHAD – Appellant
Versus
LANDBANQ SDN BHD & ANOR – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. background of property ownership and transactions. (Para 1 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8) |
| 2. high court's findings on ownership claims. (Para 9 , 10 , 16) |
| 3. burden of proof rests on the plaintiff. (Para 11 , 12 , 14 , 15) |
| 4. evidence supporting existence of spa-1976. (Para 20 , 21 , 22 , 24 , 25) |
| 5. evidence of ownership and payment of purchase price. (Para 27 , 30 , 32 , 34) |
| 6. d1 as a bare trustee post-payment. (Para 35 , 36 , 38 , 39) |
| 7. application of the nemo dat rule. (Para 42 , 43) |
| 8. duties of the official receiver in property transactions. (Para 44 , 45 , 48 , 49) |
Introduction
[1] On 3 July 2020, the Kuala Lumpur High Court dismissed Malayan Produce Company Sdn Bhd (appellant /plaintiff) claim against Landbanq Sdn Bhd (Dalam Likuidasi) (1st respondent/1st defendant) and Yushin Kogyo (M) Sdn Bhd (2nd respondent/2nd defendant) for the recovery of properties held under Grants No 17518/M1/4/1, 17518/M1/5/1, 17518/M1/6/1 and 17518/M1/7/1 (the said Properties). It is a decision after a full trial where a total of 9 witnesses testified. The appellant/plaintiff was also ordered to pay cost of RM50,000.00 to the 1st respondent/1st defendant and RM40
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
