ISSUES

Issue 1: Whether the charge made by Edmond is valid?

Issue 2: Whether Cecelia can claim back her land as it was

charged by forgery by Edmond?

Issue 3: Whether the purchaser who bought the land in public

auction has the indefeasible title?
RULES:
Issue 1: Whether the charge made by Edmond is valid?

• i. Nemo dat quad non habet

- No one gives what he do not have.
• ii.S.340 (1) of National Land Code
- Once an interest is registered, it cannot be set aside because of some defects existing in the title prior to
registration.
• iii. Public Prosecutor v Tan Sri Muhammad Bin Muhammad Taib
- National Land Code does not recognizes only the trust. As against the world at large, the National Land Code
recognizes only the registered proprietor as being entitled to exercise the right of ownership to deal with the
land.
• iv. Teh Bee v K Maruthamuthu
- In Torrens system, registration is everything.
• v. PJTV Denson (M) Sdn. Bhd. V Roxy (Malaysia) Sdn. Bhd.
- The concept of indefeasibility of title is so deeply embedded in our land law that it seems almost trite to
restate it. Therefore, the registration of the transfer of the said land under the National Land Code defeats
all prior unregistered interests in that land unless the party who acquires the registered title has been guilty
of fraud.
Issue 2: Whether Cecelia can claim back her land as it was charged by forgery by Edmond?

• i. S. 340 (2) (b) of the National Land Code.

-In the case of forgery, this provision provides for the title or interest so acquired by the proprietor or
transferee immediately to the forgery to be defeasible and liable to be set aside.
• ii. Chiew Lip Seng v Perwira Habib Bank (M) Bhd.
-The charge had become defeasible as a result of the forgery and could be set aside.
• iii. OCBC Bank (M) Bhd v Pendaftar Hakmilik Negeri Johor Darul Takzim
-Since the Appellant’s interent as charge over the land had been granted by the person whose title
may have been acquired through a forged transfer and therefore liable to be defeated under S.340 (2)
(b) of NLC, the Registrar had ample grounds to enter his caveat against the sale of land.
Issue 3: Whether the purchaser who bought the land in public auction has the indefeasible title?
• i. S.340 (3) (a) of National Land Code
-Where the title or interest is subsequently transferred, this provision provides that the subsequent
proprietor or transferee will similarly obtain a defeasible title or interest.
• ii. S. 340 (3) (b) of National Land Code
-However, this provision stated that any interest subsequently granted out of the title which is
defeasible provided that the purchaser acts in good faith and gives valuable consideration for the title
or interest in question, it confers protection on such a subsequent proprietor and the title will be
indefeasible.
• iii. Adorna Properties Sdn Bhd v Boonsom Boonyanit
-By virtue of S.340 of the National Land Code, any purchaser in good faith and for valuable
consideration are excluded from the application of the substantive provision of S. 340 (3) of NLC.
Therefore, on the facts that this case, even if the instrument of transfer was forged, the defendant
nevertheless obtained an indefeasible title to the land.
• iv. Tan Ying Hong v Tan Sian San
-However, as the bank was an immediate holder of the charges, it could not take advantage of the
proviso to S. 340 (3) of National Land Code. The fact that the bank acquired the interest in question in
good faith for value was not in issue because the charges arose from void instruments. It automatically
followed that such charges were liable to be set aside at the instance of the registered proprietor.