EMI SUHARDI BIN MOHD FADZIL v 1. ) ZAINAP BINTI ABU 2. ) PENGHUNI-PENGHUNI YANG TIDAK DIKENALI YANG MENDUDUKI SEBAHAGIAN TANAH YANG TERKANDUNG DI BAWAH GM 57,LOT 1915, MUKIM BUKIT LADA, DAERAH POKOK SENA,KEDAH DAN SEBUAH RUMAH YANG BERALAMAT DI NO.31, KAMPUNG BUKIT LADA, JALAN KAMPUNG PALAS, 06400 POKOK SENA, KEDAH PIHAK KETIGA Shaffie Bin Md Hassan

Case Significance

Illustrates the strength of indefeasibility of a registered title under the National Land Code, the court upholding the registered proprietor's title and ordering vacant possession where fraud was unproven and an under-declaration of price for stamp duty was a mere revenue irregularity, not a defect voiding the transfer.

This High Court decision concerns the indefeasibility of a registered title and a claim for vacant possession, in a dispute framed by the court as whether the sanctity of the land register prevails over unregistered family arrangements and unproven assertions of dishonesty. The registered proprietor, the plaintiff, had purchased agricultural land in Kedah from a third party under a sale and purchase agreement, with the transfer executed by the statutory Form 14A after full payment, and had become registered as proprietor after earlier obtaining the removal of private caveats. The defendants, children of the original owner, refused to deliver vacant possession, contending that the third party had held a defined portion of the land on trust for them and had committed fraud and breach of trust by selling the whole to the plaintiff; they also raised, as an unpleaded issue, that the purchase price had been under-declared for stamp duty. The court held that under-stamping is a revenue irregularity under the Stamp Act 1949, not a form of statutory non-compliance that renders the instrument void or insufficient under section 340(2)(b) of the National Land Code, and does not defeat registration. It found that fraud had not been established to the required standard, drew an adverse inference under section 114(g) of the Evidence Act 1950 against the defendants and third party for failing to testify and to call material witnesses to the alleged trust, and held the defence insufficient to rebut the conclusive nature of the register. The court allowed the plaintiff's claim and dismissed the counterclaim, ordering the defendants to deliver vacant possession by a fixed date, making no order for general damages against them, and ordering the third party — the vendor who created the dispute — to pay the plaintiff's costs of RM35,000 and to indemnify the defendants for the sums due to the plaintiff. The judgment illustrates the strength of indefeasibility under the National Land Code.