The signatures on the Power of Attorney and Sale Agreement were forged, rendering the land transfer null and void.

[22] There are 4 issues which had been agreed by the parties for the determination of this Court as follows:-

(i) Whether the Plaintiff's alleged signature on the PA dated 25 May 2000 was forged / fraudulently made;

(ii) Whether the Plaintiff's alleged signature on the S&P dated 2 May 2002 was forged / fraudulently made;

(iii) Whether the 1st Defendant is a bona fide purchaser for value;

(iv) If the answer is affirmative, whether the 1st Defendant acquired good title to the said Land upon registration despite the forgery.

The Court's Findings

[23] Having heard the evidence and considered the submissions from both parties, my answer to the first two questions above are in the affirmative that the Plaintiff's signatures in the PA and S&P were forged and they are not the signatures of the Plaintiff.

[24] The Plaintiff had vehemently denied the signatures in the PA and S&P were his with his own direct evidence as well as supported by the evidence of a bank manager, his business acquaintance and his own children. The Plaintiff had produced the sample or the specimen of his signatures from the bank documents, payment vouchers and school records of his children dated back even before the PA and S&P were created. From these series of documents, the Plaintiff had shown that his signatures either in the full version and simplified or initial versions were considered or taken as his official signatures particularly in his banking documentation. His full signature contained of his last two names ie "Shet Khan" were used in all other documents as mentioned above.

[25] When these signatures in the above-mentioned documents had been proven by the Plaintiff as his and they are compared with the purported signatures of the Plaintiff in the PA and S&P, the contra is obvious. The Plaintiff's direct evidence through the production of the documents proven to be executed by him and his constant denial of signing in the manner as per the signatures shown in the PA and S&P can be accepted by the Court pursuant to s 67 of the Evidence Act 1950 . In his witness statement WS-PW1 stated:

"J11: .....

.....

Nama CHEE SHET KHAN dalam PA itu adalah nama saya, tapi tandatangan yang terdapat pada nama saya itu bukan tandatangan saya dan kerana saya tidak pernah menandatangani PA itu.

.....

.....

.....

.....

Secara keseluruhannya, saya tegaskan bahawa saya tidak pernah sama sekali menandatangani PA tersebut. Jika sekiranya saya telah menandatangani PA itu (yang mana saya nafikan dengan tegas), tentu saya akan membuat pembetulan kepada nama dan no. kad pengenalan yang ada pada PA itu. Selain itu juga, bentuk tandatangan yang terdapat di dalam PA itu tentu akan serupa dengan tandatangan saya yang sebenar."

"J13:.....

.....

.....

Menurut S&P itu disediakan oleh pejabat guaman Datu Nasrun & Co dan nama yang menyaksikan kononnya tandatangan saya di S&P itu ialah Datu Nasrun Datu Mansor. Saya tidak pernah menandatangani S&P itu di pejabat Datu Nasrun.

.....

.....

Secara keseluruhannya, saya tegaskan bahawa saya tidak pernah sama sekali menandatangani S&P tersebut. Jika sekiranya saya telah menandatangani S&P itu (yang mana saya nafikan dengan tegas), tentu saya akan membuat pembetulan kepada nama dan no. kad pengenalan yang ada pada S&P itu. Selain itu juga, bentuk tandatangan yang terdapat di dalam S&P itu tentu akan serupa dengan tandatangan saya yang sebenar."

[26] The Plaintiff was referred to his purported signatures at p 7 of the PA and p 22 of the S&P in Bundle C which he denied:

"Q34: Rujuk kamu kepada mukasurat 7 Bundle C. Boleh beritahu pada mahkamah tandatangan siapa yang berada pada nama kamu?

A : Saya tidak tahu. Bukan saya yang tandatangan

Q35: Rujuk kamu kepada mukasurat 22 Bundle C di bahagian nama kamu. Boleh beritahu pada mahkamah