Manian Raju & Associates

On the court record

A litigation record spanning defamation and land-title fraud, engaging the elements and defences of the tort of defamation and the indefeasibility provisions of section 340 of the National Land Code, before the High Court and Court of Appeal.

Manian Raju & Associates is recorded in the corpus across defamation and land-fraud litigation, at both first instance and on appeal. In a High Court matter the firm acted for the defence in an action framed as fitnah (defamation) — pleaded as libel and slander — brought by the beneficiaries of an estate. The judgment worked through the classic elements of the tort: the defamatory statement, its publication, and the defences of pembelaan kebenaran (justification), komen berpatutan (fair comment) and keistimewaan bersyarat (qualified privilege), together with the question of niat jahat (malice) and the availability of ganti rugi am and ganti rugi teruk (general and aggravated damages) and of an injunction to restrain further publication, in a dispute that engaged the parties' professional reputations. The firm's land work is represented by a linked pair of Court of Appeal matters in which it appeared for the respondent, both arising from an alleged fraudulent transfer of land and turning on section 340 of the National Land Code and the shield of indefeasibility. The appeals examined the distinction between an immediate and a subsequent purchaser, whether a party was a bona fide purchaser for valuable consideration, and whether the burden of proving that cash payments had actually been made had been discharged — the court noting that the transactions had been carried out in circumstances that did not vouch for their authenticity, so that the proviso to section 340(3) could deprive a registered proprietor of the protection of indefeasibility. Across these matters the firm is recorded handling reputationally sensitive tort litigation and technically demanding land-title fraud work, appearing before the High Court and the Court of Appeal and engaging closely with the evidential burdens that decide both kinds of case. In the defamation action the estate beneficiaries were the plaintiffs, and the reputational stakes — engaging the assessment of professional standing and injury to image — shaped the contest over aggravated damages and injunctive relief.