JUDGMENT

Ahmad Fairuz Zainol Abidin JCA:

Introduction

[1] This is an appeal against the decision of the High Court dated 28 November 2023 wherein the learned Judicial Commissioner allowed the Respondent's claim and dismissed the Appellants' counterclaim.

[2] The Respondent is the Administrator of the estate of her late mother, Che Mariah binti Mohd Tahir ("the deceased"), having been appointed through a Grant of Letters of Administration issued by the High Court of Malaya in Kuala Lumpur on 24 May 2017.

[3] The Appellants had been occupying land held under Individual Title HSM 5339, PT 8540 Mukim Batu, District of Kuala Lumpur, Federal Territory of Kuala Lumpur ("the land") and had constructed several residential structures thereon.

[4] The Appellants contend that they have legal and beneficial interest in the land based on the following assertions:

(a) The late Ali bin Salleh, father of the 1st Appellant, had purchased the land from one Haji Mohd Noor through a Sale and Purchase Agreement dated 2 October 1959 (Exhibit D16) for a consideration of $850.00;

(b) Upon execution of the agreement and receipt of consideration, Haji Mohd Noor allegedly gave vacant possession to Ali bin Salleh while waiting for the registration of transfer of ownership;

(c) After Haji Mohd Noor's death, the land was allegedly transferred to his beneficiary, Mustamam bin Tahir;

(d) Mustamam bin Tahir, through two declarations dated 20 February 1972 (Exhibit D17) and 19 February 2005 (Exhibit D18), allegedly acknowledged Ali bin Salleh's beneficial interest in the land;

(e) The deceased Che Mariah binti Mohd Tahir allegedly acknowledged the Appellants' beneficial interest as evidenced by a letter from Messrs Wan Haron & Associates dated 16 January 2012 (Exhibit D19) offering compensation of RM650,000.00 upon the sale of the land.

[5] The Appellants further contend that Lot 4402 mentioned in the purported Sale and Purchase Agreement (Exhibit D16) is the same land as the current land held under HSM 5339 PT 8540, having undergone title changes over time.

[6] The Appellants argue that the Respondent, as the Administrator of the deceased's estate, is bound by a trust created between the estate and the Appellants.

The Respondent's Case

[7] The Respondent asserts that the Appellants are mere squatters without any legal rights or interests in the land and have been illegally occupying the land without authorization or permission from the deceased or the Respondent.

[8] The Respondent contends that:

(a) The title to the land is registered under the Respondent's name as administrator of the deceased's estate, and there are no registered interests or encumbrances in favor of the Appellants or Ali bin Salleh;

(b) The documents relied upon by the Appellants (D16, D17, D18, and D19) do not establish any beneficial interest in the land for the Appellants;

(c) The Appellants have failed to establish any link between Lot 4402 mentioned in Exhibit D16 and the land in issue (HSM 5339 PT 8540);

(d) There is no trust relationship established between the deceased or the Respondent and the Appellants;

(e) Even if the Appellants had any claims (which is denied), such claims would have been barred by limitation.

[9] The central issues in this appeal are:

(a) Whether the Appellants have beneficial interest in the land;

(b) Whether the Respondent holds the land on trust for the Appellants;

(c) Whether the documents relied upon by the Appellants establish any beneficial interest in the land.

Analysis And Findings

[10] It is clear in this current appeal, the critical issue is whether the Appellants are able to dislodge the deceased as the registered owner of the land and the Respondent as the Administrator named on the said title.

Indefeasibility Of Title

[11] The cornerstone of the Malaysian land law system is the principle of indefeasibility of title, derived from the Torrens System. This principle, as codified in ss 89 and 340 of the National Land Code ("NLC"), provides that the register is conclusive ev