1. ) CHAN YIN FATT 2. ) CHAN YUEN CHONG 3. ) CHAN YUEN TEIM v 1. ) CHAN KWAI FONG 2. ) CHIN YAP TEK @ CHIN YAP LEK 3. ) Pentadbir Tanah Daerah Bentong

Case Significance

Illustrates that a party seeking rectification of the land register to record a trust must clearly establish the trust and the precise beneficial interests asserted, and that the court will refuse to order correction where the evidence does not support the specific entry sought.

This High Court decision at Temerloh, Pahang, concerns an application to compel the Land Administrator to correct the register of title to a parcel of land so as to record a trust, and the evidential threshold for such rectification. The plaintiffs commenced an originating summons, framed under sections 59 and 61 of the Trustee Act 1949 and a range of provisions of the National Land Code, together with a trust agreement dated 1 March 1993. They sought an order that the third defendant, the District Land Office, correct the ownership records of a parcel of land in the Mukim of Sabai, Bentong, by adding to the register that the first defendant held a share of the land as a trustee for the plaintiffs. The claim therefore turned on establishing the existence and terms of the alleged trust over the land, and on whether the register should be rectified to reflect it. The Court examined the evidence bearing on the trust and the beneficial interests said to arise from it. In the course of its analysis it observed that, on the material before it, the arrangement said to give rise to trusteeship extended also to the first and second defendants, complicating the plaintiffs' contention that the register should be corrected solely in the manner they proposed. Not being satisfied that the plaintiffs had made out an entitlement to the rectification sought, the Court dismissed the plaintiffs' application with costs. The decision illustrates that a party seeking rectification of the land register to record a trust bears the burden of clearly establishing the trust and the precise beneficial interests it asserts, and that the court will decline to order correction of the register where the evidence does not support the specific entry sought. The Court's approach reflects the caution with which the register of title is treated: because registration confers indefeasible rights subject only to the exceptions in the National Land Code, a court will not readily order the Land Administrator to enter a trust or other qualification on the strength of contested evidence, and the party seeking such an entry must prove the underlying trust with precision before the register is disturbed.