Su Tiang Joo J:

GROUNDS OF JUDGMENT Introduction

[1]Multiple fingers were pointed, with allegations met with counter-allegations, as to who is defrauding who, in this action involving yet another case of land fraud, that has come before the Court. However, in this case, the web of deceit that was allegedly spun, is complex.

[2]At the end of the trial, conducted over 16 days between June and October 2025, this Court has to make a decision as to whether the land reverts to the original proprietors or the purchaser gets to keep it, and whether the charge by the bank which financed the purchase is indefeasible, and whether the land office was negligent in allowing the transfer of the land to be registered.

[3]On 1.12.2025, this Court pronounced judgment where I dismissed the purchaser’s claim, allowed the original proprietors’ counterclaim and ordered the charge entered in favour of the purchaser’s financing bank to be cancelled. These are the full grounds of judgment for the decision made.

Subject land

[4]The subject land is a vacant piece of land measuring approximately 1,832 square meters in the prime enclave of Kenny Hills or Bukit Tunku, Kuala Lumpur. It is held under Issue Document of Title, Geran 4124 Lot 35599, Mukim Kuala Lumpur, Daerah Kuala Lumpur (the said “Land”).

Parties

[5]The plaintiff in the original action, Regal Management Services Sdn. Bhd. (“Regal”), is a private limited company incorporated in Malaysia and is a developer. It is the current registered proprietor of the said Land.

[6]The first defendant (Zaiton binti M. Eusuff or “Zaiton”) and the second defendant (Siti Haja binti M. Eusuff or “Siti Haja”) in the original action, are sisters and, are Malaysian citizens. They were the original registered proprietors of the said Land. They brought a counterclaim and are the plaintiffs in the counterclaim. Collectively, they will be referred to as “Zaiton and Siti Haja” or the “Defendants”.

[7]The first defendant to the counterclaim is Regal.

[8]The second defendant to the counterclaim is RHB Bank Berhad (“RHB”). It is a public listed company incorporated in Malaysia, and carries on the business of banking.

[9]The third defendant to the counterclaim is the Director of Land and Mines, Federal Territories of Kuala Lumpur (“Pengarah”), whereas the fourth defendant to the counterclaim is the Registrar of Titles, Federal Territories of Kuala Lumpur (“Pendaftar”).

Rival contentions

[10]Regal asserted it was lawfully registered as the proprietor of the said Land after having paid RM4,100,000.00 for it, pursuant to a sale and purchase agreement dated 13.11.2020 (the said “Impugned SPA”), made between it and Zaiton and Siti Haja. It took a loan of RM2,460,000.00 (the said “Loan”) from RHB to part finance the purchase. With the said Loan fully disbursed, Regal had effected full payment of the purchase price and, was duly registered as the proprietor of the said Land. It, thus, asserts its title is indefeasible.

[11]Regal claimed that it was represented by the law firm of Messrs Mansoor Saat & Co (“MS”) in the sale and purchase transaction, that both Zaiton and Siti Haja were represented by the law firm of Messrs Yeow Yap & Co (“Mis YYC”). This proved to be a highly contentious and critical assertion because both Zaiton and Siti Haja claimed that they did not at any point in time appoint YYC, and they have never met the Advocate & Solicitor, Yeow Tze Yi also known as Keith Yeow (PW4) who was the impugned transactional solicitor said to be acting for them in the SPA.

[12]RHB admitted giving the loan and, after the said Land was transferred to Regal, a charge over it was registered in its favour as security for the said Loan. It asserted its charge is in any event, indefeasible, as it is a bona fide purchaser for value without notice.

[13]Zaiton and Siti Haja claimed they never sold the said Land and, that the original Issue Document of Title with serial number SPTB2 1342378 (“Original IDT”) was at all times with their sister Aisha binti M. Eu