Nurul Alia Afina Binti Mohd Zaidi

On the court record

Illustrates that indefeasibility of registered title under section 340 of the National Land Code is not displaced without concrete, compelling and cogent proof of fraud or forgery.

Nurul Alia Afina Binti Mohd Zaidi's appearances in this corpus span land law and commercial civil procedure. As counsel for the appellant in the Court of Appeal (Mahkamah Rayuan), she acted in a dispute over the indefeasibility of registered land title governed by section 340 of the National Land Code (Revised 2020) (Act 828). That provision confers an indefeasible title or interest on a registered proprietor "except in certain circumstances", and the case explored the familiar distinction between an "immediate purchaser" and a "subsequent purchaser", and the protection given to a bona fide purchaser for valuable consideration. The allegation was one of fraudulent transfer resting on a forged signature and a fake land title. The court's analysis emphasised that the burden of proof on a party alleging fraud is a heavy one, and it found that the burden had not been discharged in the absence of concrete, compelling or cogent evidence — a reminder that indefeasibility is not lightly displaced by unproven assertions of forgery.

In the High Court (Mahkamah Tinggi), she also acted as counsel for the plaintiff in a commercial suit, where the live question was procedural: an application for leave to amend a writ and statement of claim under Order 20 rule 5 of the Rules of Court 2012, including a proposal to add further defendants. Applications of that kind require the court to weigh the interests of justice in allowing a party to put its real case against the prejudice of a late amendment.

Taken together, the reported work shows a practice engaging both substantive land law — the statutory scheme of registration and indefeasibility under the National Land Code — and the day-to-day machinery of civil litigation, including amendment and joinder of parties. As appellant's counsel on the land appeal, her task was to challenge the registered proprietor's protection on the footing that the transfer was tainted by fraud and forgery.