SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2016 MarsdenLR 2212

FEDERAL COURT PUTRAJAYA
TAN ONG BAN – Appellant
Versus
TEOH KIM HENG – Respondent


Table of Content
1. background of the disputed sale and purchase agreements. (Para 1 , 4 , 5)
2. the application of s 340 of the nlc to the case. (Para 17 , 21)
3. arguments on beneficial ownership principles applied to statutory contracts. (Para 22 , 26)
4. final ruling and dismissal of the appeal. (Para 53 , 54)
Arifi Zakaria CJ:

Introduction

[1] This is an appeal by the appellant (the plaintiff in the High Court) against the decision of the Court of Appeal in allowing the respondent's (the 1st defendant in the High Court) appeal. The Court of Appeal ruled that the 1st defendant was a bona fie purchaser for value without notice, hence is clothed with the statutory protection accorded by s 340 National Land Code 1965 ("NLC"). That being the case, the Court of Appeal held that the 1st defendant has acquired an indefeasible title to the property.

[2] The 2nd defendant named in the High Court proceeding was a developer company known as Juara Aspirasi (M) Sdn Bhd (the 2nd defendant in the High Court), is not a party before us. For ease of reference, we shall refer to the parties as they were cited in the High Court.

Question Of Law

[3] On 19 May 2014, this Court granted leave to the plaintiff

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top