Yew Huoi, How & Associates | Leading Malaysia Law Firm

Menu

LAND LAW – FORGERY OF SIGNATURE OF THE VENDOR ON TRANSFER DOCUMENTS – SIGNATURE EXPERT

I have just discovered through a land search that my property was no longer registered in my name. What can I do?

  • You can file a claim to annul the registration of your property to the unknown third party under Section 340(2)(b) of the National Land Code.
  • Section 340(2) of the National Land Code reads as follows:

“(1) The title or interest of any person or body for the time being registered as proprietor of any land, or in whose name any lease, charge or easement is for the time being registered, shall, subject to the following provisions of this section, be indefeasible.

(2) The title or interest of any such person or body shall not be indefeasible—

  • in any case of fraud or misrepresentation to which the person or body, or any agent of the person or body, was a party or privy; or
  • where registration was obtained by forgery, or by means of an insufficient or void instrument; or
  • where the title or interest was unlawfully acquired by the person or body in the purported exercise of any power or authority conferred by any written law.”

What are the steps you should take before filing your claim:

STEP 1:    Conduct a private land search with the Land Office for copies of all the transfer documents. Alternatively, you may file an application for discovery to obtain these documents

STEP 2:    Send the transfer documents for signature expert’s or Jabatan Kimia’s verification. Signature Expert will require approximately 10 signatures made during contemporaneous period for comparison. Original documents are preferred.

STEP 3 :    Signature expert will compare the signature using video spectra comparison comparator. VSC system is used to enlarge the image for comparison purpose. A comparison chart will be prepared. Every stroke, loop, diacritic and underscores will be marked to show handwriting characteristic. If original copy of the documents is given, the indentation or pressure point will be analysed. Signature expert will give his level of opinion based on the scale of 1 – 5. 1 being the highest level of similarity. 4 and 5 on the negative side i.e. not similar.

STEP 4 :    If the expert report has 4 or 5 level of opinion, you would have generally made up a case for fraud and forgery.

Is signature expert all that I need to prove fraud and forgery?

  • Yes. Generally, the victim of forgery would not have knowns or had any dealing with the perpetrator of fraud and forgery. It will be impossible for the victim to produce any other evidence to prove fraud and forgery. This is a rule based on common sense.

(Case in Point: Wong Ing Tong v Yap Piat Eng @ Yap Lien Eng & Anor and other appeals [2023] 2 MLJ 1)

Back to Latest Legal Updates

Recent Post

LEGAL UPDATES – THE SILENT CURVE: WHY MEDICAL PREMIUMS SUDDENLY SPIKE

Medical insurance premiums do not increase gradually. They rise exponentially. For many years, costs appear manageable, giving policyholders a false sense of stability. However, once the insured reaches their mid-60s, medical charges begin to accelerate sharply, and after age 70, they often outpace the premiums by several multiples.

This happens because medical insurance is funded from a finite pool of money – an investment “bucket” – while the medical rider functions like an engine that consumes more fuel as the insured ages. When the engine grows faster than the bucket can be replenished, depletion is inevitable. The result is sudden premium hikes, demands for top-ups, or policy lapse – not due to misconduct or missed payments, but due to the structural design of the product itself.

Read More »
8 February ,2026 No Comments

THE ‘COVER UNTIL 99’ MYTH – WHY INSURANCE AGENTS GET IT WRONG

Consumers must stop relying on what insurance agents say and start reading what insurance policies actually provide. ‘Medical cover until 99’ does not mean guaranteed coverage at an affordable premium. In reality, medical insurance charges rise exponentially after age 70, often making the policy mathematically unsustainable. By the time policyholders realise this, they are told to top up tens of thousands of ringgit or lose coverage altogether.

Read More »
8 February ,2026 No Comments

STRATA TITLES ACT – DEVELOPER MUST ACCOUNT FOR COMMON PROPERTY COMPENSATION: HIGH COURT IMPOSES CONSTRUCTIVE TRUST

In JMB Kelana Square v Perantara Properties Sdn Bhd & Ors [2025] 12 MLJ 51, the High Court held that a developer who received compensation for land compulsorily acquired for the LRT 3 project could not retain sums attributable to common property. Although the compensation was paid entirely to the developer as registered proprietor, the Court found that part of the acquired land constituted common property, and the developer therefore held RM6.05 million on constructive trust for the Joint Management Body. The decision affirms that JMBs have proprietary standing to recover compensation for common property and that courts will intervene to prevent unjust enrichment in strata developments.

Read More »
1 February ,2026 No Comments

UNFAIR DISMISSAL – MEDICAL LEAVE IS NOT MISCONDUCT: HIGH COURT UPHOLDS INDUSTRIAL COURT’S PROTECTION OF SICK EMPLOYEE

In Aerodarat Services Sdn Bhd v Lawerance Raj a/l Arrulsamy & Anor [2025] 11 MLJ 26, the High Court dismissed an employer’s judicial review and affirmed that prolonged medical leave does not, by itself, amount to misconduct justifying dismissal. The Court held that the employer failed to prove the critical element of intention not to return to work or unwillingness to perform contractual duties, despite high absenteeism caused by serious illness and surgery. The ruling reinforces that employers must distinguish between genuine illness and misconduct, and cannot rely on medical absence alone to terminate employment.

Read More »
1 February ,2026 No Comments

WILL AND PROBATE – COURT OF APPEAL INVALIDATES WILL OF 97-YEAR-OLD TESTATOR: CAPACITY, SUSPICION AND UNDUE INFLUENCE PROVED

In Kong Kin Lay & Ors v Kong Kin Siong & Ors [2025] 5 MLJ 891, the Court of Appeal set aside a will executed by a 97-year-old testator, holding that there was real doubt as to testamentary capacity, compounded by serious suspicious circumstances and undue influence by certain beneficiaries. The Court emphasised that while the “golden rule” is not a rule of law, failure to obtain medical confirmation of capacity where doubt exists is a grave omission. Credibility issues with the drafting solicitor, beneficiary involvement in the will’s preparation, and suppression of evidence led the Court to declare the will invalid and order intestacy.

Read More »
1 February ,2026 No Comments

NOT AN ‘AGREEMENT TO AGREE’: ENGLISH COURT OF APPEAL SAVES LONG-TERM SUPPLY CONTRACT DESPITE OPEN PRICE CLAUSE

In KSY Juice Blends UK Ltd v Citrosuco GmbH [2025] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 581, the UK Court of Appeal held that a long-term supply contract was not unenforceable merely because part of the price was stated as “open price to be fixed”. The Court implied a term that, in the absence of agreement, the price would be a reasonable or market price, noting that the product’s value could be objectively benchmarked against the market price of frozen concentrated orange juice. Emphasising that courts should preserve commercial bargains rather than destroy them, the decision confirms that section 8(2) of the Sale of Goods Act 1979 operates as a saving provision, not a bar to enforceability.

Read More »
1 February ,2026 No Comments
en_USEN
zh_TWZH ms_MYMY en_USEN
× Contact Us