GAJENDIRAN A/LV.VELLARSAMY v 1. ) LIM AH BEE 2. ) CHONG EI LING 3. ) YOONG SOO FAH 4. ) TAN POH TEK 5. ) Pentadbir Tanah Daerah Hulu Langat 6. ) PENDAFTAR HAKMILIK NEGERI SELANGOR

Case Significance

Illustrates the restoration of fraudulently transferred estate land to the administrator de bonis non and the liability of the Land Administrator in negligence for permitting a fraudulent change of the registered proprietor's name.

This High Court decision at Shah Alam concerns the recovery of land for a deceased's estate following a land fraud, and the liability of the land authority for negligence. The plaintiff, acting as attorney for the administrator de bonis non of the estate of a long-deceased proprietor, sought to recover a parcel of land of which the estate had been deprived through the wrongful acts of the defendants. The fraud began when a fictitious person, using a non-existent identity-card number, applied to change the name of the registered proprietor, then long dead, to another name, and the land office allowed the change without requiring an identity card and without any original title being furnished for the transaction. After the name change, the land was transferred to the first defendant, who sold it to the third and fourth defendants and also to the second defendant, in whose name it was ultimately registered; the third and fourth defendants had earlier obtained an order for specific performance of their sale and purchase agreement, resulting in a re-transfer to the first defendant. When the administrator discovered the fraud, the estate sued the first to fourth defendants and also sued the Land Administrator for negligence and breach of statutory duties, joining the Registrar of Titles. The court examined the chain of dealings and the land authority's failure to guard against the fraudulent name change. It ordered that the first and second defendants be prohibited from further dealings in the land, that the title be transmitted to and vested in the administrator de bonis non within fourteen days, and that the Land Administrator take the necessary steps to give effect to those orders; it awarded RM50,000 in damages against the Land Administrator for the breach of duties that contributed to the estate being divested of the land, and dismissed the claim against the Registrar as the Land Administrator was the party responsible. It declined to declare the sale and purchase agreements null and void, the plaintiff not being a party to them, and left caveat matters to a separate action. The judgment is a useful illustration of the restoration of fraudulently transferred estate land and of a land authority's liability in negligence for permitting the fraud.