Back
2011 MarsdenLR 2125
FEDERAL COURT PUTRAJAYA
HASSAN KADIR & ORS – Appellant
Versus
MOHAMED MOIDU MOHAMED & ANOR – Respondent
[Civil Appeal No: 02()-11-2010(J)]
The court confirmed that a deed executed prior to the enactment of specific provisions of legislation is not invalidated retroactively, affirming the doctrine of constructive trust in equitable interests.
Headnote:(A) National Land Code 1965 - Sections 205, 206 to 211 - Appeal regarding the validity and enforceability of a Deed of Sale executed prior to the amendment of s 205 - The Deed of Sale and Irrevocable Power of Attorney does not constitute an instrument of dealing under s 205 - Court ruled that the prohibition in s 205(3) does not apply since the deed predates the legislative amendment. (Paras 10, 12, 18, 28)
(B) Constructive Trust - Equitable interest arises from a valid agreement and possession under the Deed of Sale - Defendants hold property as constructive trustees for the plaintiffs as per the finding of the lower courts. (Paras 24, 27)
Facts of the case:
Plaintiffs purchased a portion of land from the deceased under a Deed of Sale in 1978, but the transfer was not registered upon the deceased’s death, leading to a dispute over ownership and specific performance.
Findings of Court:
The courts confirmed the existence of a constructive trust and the plaintiffs' rights to the land based on their occupation and the signed Deed.
Issues: The major issues pertained to the application of s 205 of the National Land Code concerning agricultural land transactions and the legitimacy of the plaintiffs' claims for specific performance and trust.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the Deed of Sale is valid despite ss 205(3) and (5) of the Code establishing that its retroactive effect does not invalidate the deed, thus recognizing the plaintiffs' equitable interest in the property as per the doctrine of constructive trust.
Result: Appeal dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. appeal overview. (Para 1) |
| 2. establishment of relevant facts in the case. (Para 2 , 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 3. high court proceedings and orders. (Para 6 , 7 , 8) |
| 4. legal interpretation of contractual duties. (Para 10 , 18 , 22) |
| 5. court of appeal's focus on statutory interpretation. (Para 11 , 12 , 14) |
| 6. recommendations on registering constructive trust. (Para 29 , 30) |
| 7. final judgment and costs. (Para 31) |
Introduction
[1] This is an appeal by the appellants against the decision of the Court of Appeal dated 1 September 2009 dismissing the appellants' appeal. Leave to appeal was granted by this Court on 19 July 2010 on the following question:
Whether the Deed of Sale and Irrevocable Power of Attorney, executed prior to the commencement of s 205 of the National Land Code 1965 , is an instrument of dealing in respect of an alienated land, within the provisions of s 205, of the National Land Code 1965 , read with ss 5 and 206 to 211 thereof; and if it is not an instrument of dealing, whether the prohibition in s 205 (3) applies to the Deed of Sale and Irrevocable Power of Attorney.
In this judgment, the respondents will be referred to as the plaintiffs and the appellants as the defendants as in the trial Court.
The Facts
[2] The facts relevant to this appeal are briefly as follows:
By the deed of sale and Irrevocable Power of Attorney dated 7 October 1978 ("the Deed of Sale"), the plaintiffs purchased from the defendants' late father ("the deceased") 21,000 square feet ("the said portion") in the land comprised in GM 482 (previously known as EMR 381) Lot 261, Mukim Plentong, Daerah Johor Bharu, Negeri Johor ("the said land"). The said land is subject to the category "agriculture". The plaintiffs paid the full purchase price of RM42,000.00 and entered into possession of the said portion of the land.
[3] The deceased passed away on 17 November 1978. The defendants then obtained a distribution order as beneficiaries of their late father's estate, where the said land, including the said portion, was transmitted to the defendants as registered proprietors in equal shares.
[4] The plaintiffs then requested the defendants to transfer the said portion to them but the defendants refused.
[5] The plaintiffs then lodged a private caveat on the said land. The plaintiffs' application to the Johor Bahru Land Administrator to vary the distribution order was rejected.
The High Court
[6] The plaintiffs filed an originating summons in the Johor Bharu High Court against the defendants but withdrew it with liberty to file afresh.
[7] Subsequently, the plaintiffs filed a writ of summons against the defendants praying for, inter alia:
(a) Specific performance of the Deed;
(b) Transfer of said portion of the subject land to the plaintiffs pursuant to the said Deed and for the plaintiffs to be made co-owners of the subject land;
(c) Alternatively, a declaration that the plaintiffs are entitled to the said land portion under the Deed and the defendants as trustees transfer the same to the plaintiffs and be made registered co-owners of the land, failing which the Senior Assistant Registrar shall execute the transfer of the said portion to the plaintiffs and that the Registrar of Titles be directed to register the same in favour of the plaintiffs;
(d) Such further relief that the High Court deems fit and equitable in the circumstances of the case; and
(e) Costs.
[8] At the end of the trial, the learned trial judge found for the plaintiffs and made the following orders:
(a) That the defendants do hold the subject land comprised in GM 482 (previously known as EMR 381) Lot 261 Mukim Pletong, Daerah Johor Bharu, Negeri Johor subject to the constructive trust created in favour of the plaintiffs to the extent of 21,000 square feet thereof pursuant to the Deed of Sale and Irrevocable Power of Attorney dated 7 October 1978;
(b) That pursuant to s 417 of the NLC, the Registrar of Titles or the Land Administrator, as the case may be, do cause an endorsement
