Yew Huoi, How & Associates | Leading Malaysia Law Firm

Menu

LAND LAW – FORGED AND FRAUDULENT – COURT STRIPS INDEFEASIBLE SHIELD FROM FRAUDULENT LAND TRANSFERS

1. Summary and Facts

The dispute in Baskaran a/l Govindasamy & Ors v Chiew Yit Kin [2025] 3 MLJ 372 concerned allegations of a fraudulent transfer of land involving Baskaran (“the appellant”) and Chiew Yit Kin (“the respondent”). The appellant asserted that his property had been fraudulently transferred to the respondent without his knowledge or consent, resulting in the wrongful loss of title and ownership. Baskaran initiated proceedings seeking the cancellation of the transfer, alleging fraud and forgery. The respondent, claiming to be a bona fide purchaser for value, asserted that the transfer was valid, duly registered, and protected under the indefeasibility provisions of the National Land Code (“NLC”). The High Court initially dismissed Baskaran’s claim, affirming the validity of the transfer, and recognizing Chiew Yit Kin’s indefeasible title. Baskaran appealed the decision.

2. Legal Issues

• Whether the transfer of the appellant’s land to the respondent was fraudulent or procured through forgery.
• Whether the respondent was a bona fide purchaser for value and thus enjoyed indefeasible title under Section 340 of the NLC.
• Whether the appellant had sufficiently proven fraud or forgery to invalidate the transfer and thus override the respondent’s claim of indefeasibility.

3. Court’s Findings

• The Court of Appeal allowed Baskaran’s appeal, setting aside the High Court’s decision.
• The transfer documents presented to effectuate the change of ownership contained significant irregularities and indications of forgery and fraud. The evidence provided by the appellant convincingly demonstrated he had neither consented to nor executed the transfer documents.
• Despite the respondent’s claim as a bona fide purchaser, the Court held that indefeasibility under Section 340 of the NLC does not protect a title procured through forgery or fraud. The Court found clear evidence establishing fraud, negating the respondent’s claim of indefeasible title.
• The Court concluded that the appellant had successfully discharged the burden of proof in establishing that the registration of the respondent’s title was procured through fraud and forgery, thus invalidating the respondent’s indefeasible title.

4. Practical Implications

This decision significantly clarifies key principles regarding fraudulent land transfers:
• Land titles, although generally indefeasible under the Torrens system, will not enjoy indefeasibility if procured through fraud or forgery.
• Individuals asserting indefeasible title must ensure the authenticity and legitimacy of the transfer documents, particularly in transactions involving disputed claims.
• Courts will rigorously scrutinize allegations of fraud or forgery to protect rightful owners, ensuring fraudulent transfers do not gain protection under indefeasibility provisions.

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