The case is about the Land owned by plaintiff sold to second defendant by fraudster who had

impersonated plaintiff and Subsequent sale by second defendant to first defendant. Plaintiff in
possession of original manual issue document of title at all times First defendant a bona fide purchaser
in good faith and for valuable consideration. Is stated whether the solicitor is who acted for fraudster
owes a duty of care to real owner of land and whether Court of Appeal's decision in Yap Ham Seow v
Fatimawati bt Ismail & 4 Ors (and Another Appeal) [2014] 2 AMR 301 is a correct decision. Whether
replacement title in continuation generated by land registry when original issue document of title was
at all material times in original owner's possession, is valid and capable of validly passing title to
subject land to subsequent purchaser in good faith and for valuable consideration, or is void ab initio.

Rajamani d/o Meyappa Chettiar is the plaintiff in the High Court, was the original registered proprietor
and lawful owner of a parcel of land known as EMR 6527 ("the said land"). At all material times, the
original manual issue document of title to the said land ("IDT1") was in the plaintiff's possession. On
May24, 2005, a computerize dis sued document of title for the said land("IDT2") was generated by the
fifth and sixth defendants in the name of the plaintiff.

On October 20, 2006 the second defendant entered into an agreement with a fraudster who had
impersonated the true plaintiff for the purchase of the said land ("the first transaction").The fourth
defendant of which the third defendant is a partner, was appointed by the fraudster to represent her
in the sale of the said land to the second defendant. The second defendant was represented by the
seventh defendant in respect of the first transaction and in the subsequent sale of the said land to the
first defendant thereafter. The relevant documents inter alia, the copy of the result of the private land
search that was conducted by the seventh defendant's firm, the copies of the title to the land as well
as the information provided by the fraudster, were verified by the third defendant before she asked
the fraudster to execute the transfer form and the sale and purchase agreement. The seventh
defendant was also present at the material time of execution of the said documents by the fraudster.

Subsequent thereto, the fraudster purportedly lost her title document and lodged a police report to
that effect but did not inform the third defendant of the same. The seventh defendant upon the
instructions of the second defendant then applied for a replacement title. A computerised document
of title ("IDT3") was then issued in the name of the second defendant arising from the sale of the land
by the fraudster to this Cond defendant. The third and fourth defendants had no knowledge of the
application for the replacement title which was collected by the seventh defendant's firm from the
fifth defendant. The second defendant subsequently by way of a sale and purchase agreement dated
August 18, 2006 sold the land to the first defendant and in whose name a computerised document of
title ("IDT4") was then issued.

The plaintiff came to know of the transfer of the land to the second defendant and thereafter to the
first defendant upon conducting a title search and accordingly lodge da cave a ton March 28, 2007 to
protect her interest.Following there from the plaintiff commenced proceedings in the High Court
seeking inter alia a declaration that she is the registered proprietor and the true lawful owner of the
said land; that the transfer of the land to the second defendant and thereafter to the first defendant
was effected by means of fraud and/or forgery and/or by insufficient or void instrument and is
therefore void ab initio ;and that neither the second nor the first defendants are bona fide purchasers.
The plaintiff further also sought the cancellation and setting aside of the second of the first
defendant's purported title and interest.

The High Court dismissed the claim against the first defendant on the ground inter alia that the first
defendant was a bona fide purchaser for valuable consideration and whose title is valid and
indefeasible. The claim against the seventh defendant was also dismissed on the basis that the
pleaded case against him i.e. that of conspiracy with the third and fourth defendants to defraud, had
not been proved. Relying on Yap Ham Seow v Fatimawati bt Ismail & 4 Ors (and Another Appeal)
[2014] 2 AMR 301 ("Yap Ham Seow"), the High Court also dismissed the claim against the third and
fourth defendants on the ground that they owed no duty of care to the plaintiff.

Upon appeal by the plaintiff, the Court of Appeal reversed the High Court's decision in respect of the
third and fourth defendants. In doing so the Court of Appeal distinguished Yap Ham Seow and held
that the third and fourth defendants di do we a duty of care to the plaintiff and that they had
breached that duty. As regards the first defendant, the plaintiff's appeal was also allowed on the basis
inter alia that the plaintiff had upon registration, acquired indefeasibility unders 340(1) of the National
Land Code 1965 ("theNLC"). The High Court also allowed the plaintiff's claim against the seventh
defendant and dismissed the seventh defendant's cross-appeal against the High Court's specific
findings of fraud against him. The second defendant who was absent at the trial before the

Pushpaleela a/p R Selvarajah & Anor v Rajamani d/o Meyappa Chettiar (and 2 Other Appeals)

HighCourt, was also absent at the hearing in the Court of Appeal and did not file any appeal or cross-
appeal against the High Court's decision.

Hence the instant appeal by the third and fourth defendants in Civil Appeal No. 01(f)-32-10/2016(B)
("the first appeal"); the appeal by the first defendant in Civil Appeal No. 01(f)-33-10/2016(B) ("the
second appeal"); and the appeal by the seventh defendant in Civil Appeal No. 01(f)-34-10/2016(B)
("the third appeal") on the following questions of law.