A vendor who has received full purchase price becomes a bare trustee for the purchaser, lacking authority to create a subsequent charge over the property.

Abang Iskandar Abang Hashim FCJ:

Preliminary

[1] This judgment is prepared pursuant to s 78(1) of the Courts of Judicature Act 1964, as my learned brother, Idrus Harun FCJ has since relinquished the office of a judge under s 8C(1) of the Judges' Remuneration Act 1971. My learned sister Tengku Maimun Tuan Mat CJ, my learned brothers Mohd Zawawi Salleh FCJ and Abdul Rahman Sebli FCJ have read this judgment in draft and all of them agreed that this judgment be the judgment of the court.

Salient Facts Of The Case

[2] Bulyah Ishak and Noraini Abdullah ("the plaintiffs") are the joint administrators of the Estate of Nor Zainir bin Rahmat ("the deceased") who passed away on 26 June 2002. The 1st plaintiff is also the widow of the deceased.

[3] Pie-Con Sdn Bhd ("the 1st defendant") is a company set up under the Companies Act 1965. The 1st defendant had been wound up on 10 December 2012. Teow Beng Hur ("2nd defendant") and Narrimah Abdullah ("the 3rd defendant") are directors of the 1st defendant. Both are adjudged bankrupt. Ambank (M) Berhad ("the 4th defendant") is a licensed financial institution which registered address is at Level 22, Bangunan Ambank Group, Jalan Raja Chulan 50200 Kuala Lumpur.

[4] Pursuant to a sale and purchase agreement dated 22 December 1997 ("the SPA/P 1"), the deceased agreed to purchase a three-storey shop-office with Mezzanine Floor provisionally known as Lot 31, Jalan J9/J, Section 9, Bandar Shah Alam Selangor Darul Ehsan under Title No HDS 151345, Lot No PT 917 Mukim Bandar Shah Alam, Daerah Petaling, Selangor ("the property") from the 1st defendant. The plaintiffs claimed that the deceased had paid the purchase price in full.

[5] By a power of attorney ("PA") dated 26 April 2002 which was registered in Kuala Lumpur High court on 30 April 2002 under Presentation No 298003/02, the 1st defendant appointed and named the deceased as the attorney of the property ("the First PA"/P2).

[6] Pursuant to a PA dated 21 May 2002, registered in Kuala Lumpur High court on 19 July 2002 vide Presentation No 18192/02, the deceased appointed the 1st plaintiff as the substitute attorney ("the Second PA"/P3).

[7] The deceased died on 26 June 2002. The letters of administration were issued on 9 November 2005 vide Petition No: S7-31-280-2004. Both of the plaintiffs were appointed as administrators of the estate of the deceased. At that time, the title of the said Property was ready to be issued. The 1st plaintiff had requested that the title to be registered in her name. However, the developer refused to give its consent for direct transfer. The 1st plaintiff later found out that the stamp duties and assessment bills for the said Property were in the sum of RM110,355.60. However, due to financial constraint, the 1st plaintiff postponed the idea to effect the transfer of the Property to her name. But in the meantime, she had been paying quit rents and fees due to the Property as well as collecting rentals due to the Property, with no objections coming from the 1st defendant. Those are in line with the terms of the P2.

[8] The 1st plaintiff obtained the order from Kuala Lumpur High court to administer the Property vide vesting order dated 9 December 2008. Towards the end of 2011, the 1st plaintiff discovered that the 1st defendant who was no longer the owner of the Property, had charged the Property to the 4th defendant. The name of the 1st defendant was sighted as being registered as the owner of the Property. This was done without the 1st plaintiff's permission or consent. The 1st plaintiff then lodged two police reports. The 1st plaintiff had also lodged a private caveat over the Property on 10 January 2012 vide Presentation No 1129/2012. However, the same was removed.

[9] Later, the 4th defendant sought for an order for sale of the property as the 1st defendant had breached the terms and conditions of the financing facilities. The Property was scheduled for auction on 8 April 2013. However, the plaintiffs had since filed this