Immediate purchasers cannot claim indefeasibility under Section 340(3) of the National Land Code if their title stems from fraudulent activities by prior holders.

[1] This is an appeal against the concurrent findings of the trial court and the court of Appeal, which held that the 5th and 6th respondents were bona fide purchasers and that their title or interest in the lands hereinafter described were therefore protected by s 340(3) of the National Land Code .

[2] Leave was granted to the appellants to appeal against the order of the court of Appeal in respect of the matter decided by the trial court in the exercise of its original jurisdiction, on the following three "questions of law":

"Apakah kesan Penghakiman Ingkar Kehadiran bertarikh 12 Julai 2005 yang mengenepikan serta merta Surat Kuasa Mentadbir harta pusaka si mati keatas pindahmilik tanah si mati kepada responden kelima dan keenam yang menggunakan Surat Kuasa Mentadbir tersebut;

"Apakah perlindungan yang diberi dibawah undang-undang termasuk Kanun Tanah Negara 1965 kepada harta pusaka si mati dan benefisiari sama ada dalam hakmilik Rizab Melayu dan sebaliknya;

"Sama ada pindahmilik hartanah kepada Responden Kelima dan Respondent Keenam di lindungi dibawah Kanun Tanah Negara 1965 khususnya s 340".

The aforesaid leave questions 1 and 3 could be rephrased in English as follows:

"What was the effect of the judgment in default, which set aside the letters of administration to the estate of the deceased, to the transfers of the lands of the estate of the deceased to the 5th and 6th respondents?"

"Whether the transfers of the lands of the estate of the deceased to the 5th and 6th respondents were protected by s 340 of the National Land Code ?"

[3] We summarise the background facts as follows. The appellants were respectively the nephew and nieces of Saribu bte Badai (deceased). At the material time, the deceased was the registered co-proprietor of a 1/3 undivided share in lands held under EMR 3587 for Lot 2315 and EMR 6629 for Lot 2310, both in the Mukim of Dengkil, in the District of Sepang, Selangor (said Lots). The appellants' father, one Omar bin Badai, was the registered co-proprietor of the balance ⅔ undivided share in the said Lots. The deceased died in 1941, in Indonesia, without issue. Some 43 years later, the 1st respondent applied and obtained an order under the Small Estates Distribution Ordinance 1955 to distribute the undivided share of the deceased in the said Lots to the 1st-4th respondents (see 158-159 of the Appeal Record). Pursuant to the order of distribution, the 1st-4th respondents on 18 April 1984 were each vested with a 1/12 undivided share in the said Lots. Not long thereafter, by memorandum of transfer dated 29 July 1985 (see 256AR) the 1st-4th respondents transferred their total ⅓ undivided share in Lot 2315 to the 6th respondent, in consideration of the sum of RM16,000.00. By memorandum of transfer dated 29 July 1998 (see 219 AR) the 1st-4th respondents transferred their total ⅓ undivided share in Lot 2310 to the 5th respondent, in consideration of the sum of RM25,000.00. Both memorandum of transfers were executed by the 1st respondent, first for himself and also as attorney for the 2nd-4th respondents.

[4] The appellants pleaded that the 1st-4th respondents acquired title to the said Lots by fraud and or misrepresentation, in that they falsely stated that they were the children or beneficiar