0 evaluări0% au considerat acest document util (0 voturi)
108 vizualizări4 pagini
This document discusses three issues regarding a land dispute between Edmond and Cecelia. Issue 1 discusses whether Edmond's charge on the land was valid. Issue 2 discusses whether Cecelia can claim the land back if Edmond obtained it through forgery. Issue 3 discusses whether a purchaser who bought the land at a public auction would have an indefeasible title. The document provides rules from statutes and case law relevant to each issue.
This document discusses three issues regarding a land dispute between Edmond and Cecelia. Issue 1 discusses whether Edmond's charge on the land was valid. Issue 2 discusses whether Cecelia can claim the land back if Edmond obtained it through forgery. Issue 3 discusses whether a purchaser who bought the land at a public auction would have an indefeasible title. The document provides rules from statutes and case law relevant to each issue.
This document discusses three issues regarding a land dispute between Edmond and Cecelia. Issue 1 discusses whether Edmond's charge on the land was valid. Issue 2 discusses whether Cecelia can claim the land back if Edmond obtained it through forgery. Issue 3 discusses whether a purchaser who bought the land at a public auction would have an indefeasible title. The document provides rules from statutes and case law relevant to each issue.
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.