2011 MarsdenLR 2204
HIGH COURT, SANDAKAN
JURI BIN JUHAILI – Appellant
Versus
JAITI BIN LUNGKIAU & ORS – Respondent
[Suit No: S21-450F2009]
The court ruled that transfers of land based on fraudulent documents are void, requiring credible evidence to challenge Plaintiffs' claims of non-execution enforced under Section 114(g) of the Evidence Act.
Headnote:(A) Relevant Laws - Evidence Act 1950 - Section 114(g) - Plaintiffs sought a declaration that transfers of land were null and void, claiming they did not authorize any sale or power of attorney, and damages for fraudulent acts. (Paras 1-3)
(B) Fraud - The court found that the Plaintiffs never executed the Agreements and Powers of Attorney in favor of the Defendants due to fraud, with several discrepancies noted in the documentation. (Paras 4-6)
(C) Burden of Proof - The court emphasized that a failure to provide evidence from the Defendants warranted the conclusion that the Plaintiffs' testimonies were credible. (Paras 1-5, 1-4)
(D) Result - The transfers to the Defendants were set aside as void instruments based on findings regarding fraud and deceptive practices. (Paras 2-2)
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. court's finding on plaintiffs’ claims (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. testimonies and execution of documents (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7) |
[1] The Plaintiffs are successful land applicants and are/were the registered owners of the parcel of lands stated in the Writ of Summons herein situated in the District of Kinabatangan at the locality of Tegupeh, Tambisan, Sabah [hereinafter collectively called" the said Lands"].
[2] The 1st Defendant is /was at the material times an individual who became the registered owner of the said Lands, by way of transfer from the Plaintiffs. The 2nd Defendant is /was at the material time, an individual who became the registered owner of the said Lands by way of transfer from the 1st Defendant. The 3rd Defendant is a private limited company which obtained a sublease of the said Lands from the 2nd Defendant. The 4th Defendant which is the Assistant Collector of Land Revenue, Kinabatangan, the relevant authority which endorsed or approved the transfer and sublease the said Lands, has agreed to abide by any decision of this Court in this case.
[3] In their Statement of Claim, the Plaintiffs claimed the fallowings:
[a] A declaration that the Memoranda of Transfers and the Memorandum of Sublease are null and void and of no legal effect;
[b] An order that the title deed of each and every parcel of the said Lands be returned to the respective Plaintiffs and the respective Memoranda of Transfer and Memorandum of Sublease, duly deleted and that the respective plaintiffs be registered as the registered owners of their respective lands;
[c] damages for fraudulent acts to be assessed; and
[d] Statutory interest on the damages assessed at the rate of 8% per annum from the date of judgment until date of realization.
[4] At the commencement of the trial, learned counsel for all the Plaintiffs informed the Court that he did not receive or was unable to obtain any instructions from the 6th, 7th, and 8th Plaintiffs as he was unable to contact them. In the premises, learned counsel for the Plaintiffs applied to withdraw from acting for them. I granted the learned counsel for the Plaintiffs' application to withdraw as solicitors for the 6th, 7th, and 8th Plaintiffs. From hence onwards, when I refer to the Plaintiffs, it shall refer to all the Plaintiffs except the 6th, 7th and 8th Plaintiffs.
THE PLAINTIFFS' CASE
The Plaintiffs' case is that the 1st, 2nd and 3rd Defendants had obtained the said Lands by way of fraudulent means and/or forgery in that the Plaintiff never at all materials times execute the various Sale and Purchase Agreements without anyone including the 1st defendants for the sale of the said Lands, or execute any Power of Attorney to do any act on their behalves and further the Plaintiffs did not know the 1st Defendant in the first place.
THE 1ST. 2ND AND 3RD DEFENDANTS' CASE
[1] The 1st Defendant averred that he was a bona fide purchaser of the said 12 parcels of lands from the Plaintiffs and has paid the full consideration and purchase price to the Plaintiff or to their authorized representatives. The 1st Defendant further stated that all the Plaintiffs have executed and appointed the 1st Defendant as their lawful attorney.
[2] The 1st Defendant further pleaded that the 2nd, 5th, 6th 8th and 12th Plaintiffs had by a Surat Akuan dated 18/3/2003 authorised one, Mohd Kassim Haji Yassin to collect payment of the agreed purchase price from the 1st Defendant.
[3] The 1st Defendant further denied that there was any collusion and impropriety or conspiracy in any of the transfers from the Plaintiffs of the said Lands. Further the 1st Defendant contended that the transfer of the said Lands to the 2nd Defendant were proper and lawful and that there was no collusion to defraud the Plaintiffs.
[4] The 2nd Defendant pleaded that the transfer of the said Lands was for valuable consideration pursuant to a written agreement dated 21/7/2006. The 2nd Defendant further contended that he was not a party to the alleged "wrongful, intention