indefesiability of right- immediate and deferred in Malaysia overruled by Tan Yin Hong case P/S : I am sharing my personal notes of law-related subjects. Some parts of them are explained in a very informal-relaxed way and mix of languages (BM and English). Secondly, as law revolves every day, there will be outdated parts in my notes. Two ways of handling it.. (1) double check with the latest law and keep it to yourself (2) same with No. 1 coupled with your generosity to share with us, the LinkedIn users (hiks ^_^). Till then, have a nice day!

1. Effect of Registration of land –Indefeasibility
I. Definition of Indefeasibility oftitle
A. Concept
1. One of the advantage of torren system, once registered, akan dapat indefeasible
right and tak boleh dicabar oleh org lain
2. Element of conclusiveness form a kind of shield against adverse claims is
granted to registered proprietor by virtue of combined effect of s89, s340, s341.
3. T Damodaran v Choe Kuan Him
i. NLC applies to Malaysia the Torrens system of registration of title to land.
ii. purpose - get away from complicated system of rules which in England
regulate dealing with land
B. Frazer v Walker
1. Torrens system was intended to provide immunity of registered proprietor from
adverse claims.
2. IT ialah perlindungan daripada serangan pihak lawan yang membuat tuntutan
ke atas tanah atau kepentingan yang telah didaftarkan yg dinikmati oleh pemilik
berdaftar.
C. S89
1. Every register document of title shall be the conclusive evidence
(a) that title to land is vested in person being named as proprietor; and
(b) subjected to the conditions, restrictions in interest of which the land is for
the time being held by that person or body,
D. S92(1)
1. Alienation of state land to any person under final title shall confer on that person
indefeasible title over the land

2. E. S340(1)
1. Party in whose favour registration of a transfer, lease, charge or easementobtain
an idefeassible title / interest over the land.
2. Kesan: apa tuntutan yang tidak berdaftar ke atas tanah tu sebelum pendaftaran
akan dikalahkan that indefeasible right
F. Teh Bee v K Marithamithu : the strength of registered title
1. Fakta : App telah didaftarkan sebagai tuanpunya tanah dan dia dah tunjuk yg
PBN dah bagi pemberimilikan tanah kepada dia lepas dia selesai bayar premium
2. Hakmilik daftar telah tercatat nama App menunjukkkan satu keterangan
konklusif bahawa tanah tersebut terletakhak di bawah App.
3. Bawah sistem torren, daftar adalah segala-galanya dan adalah salah untuk
membenarkan satu siasatan ke atas hak seseorg yg terdapat di atas dokumen
hakmilik apabila beliau telah memegang dokumen hakmilik tersebut.
II. Kepentingan Hak MilikTidak boleh Disangkal
A. Untuk memberi satu sekuriti kepada tuanpunya tanah, pemegang pajakan,
gadaian dan lain-lain.
B. Untuk mempamerkan kedudukannya sebagai tuanpunya tanah & sesiapa yang
mempunyai kepentingan di atas tanah yang boleh didaftarkan
C. Gibbs v Walker : Dapat mengelakkan litigasi yang tidak diperlukan kerana tidak
ada sesiapa yang boleh menuntut tanpa kausa tindakan
III. Type of indefeasibility
1. Both type is concerning on the same issue: whether or not the indefesibility is
conferred once he registered the title regardless of any defect that may exist in
the instrument of dealing
2. person who is bona fide purchaser for value.

3. A. Immediate
1. Frazer v Walker – the best case to describe immediate indefeasibility
i. A land was jointly owned by a husband and wife, Frazer. Mrs frazer
forged her husband’s signature to mortgage the land in favour of R to
obtain money
ii. She then defaulted in repayment
iii. R who is the registered chargee, transferred the land to walker.
iv. Mr frazer then want to cancel the mortgage
v. HELD: since R’s interest was registered, he obtained the immediate
indefeasible title over the land and thus immune from any claim
B. Deferred
1. Concept (Doshi v Yeoh Tiong Lay):
i. if the title of the land is required through any exception under s. 340 (2),
the indefeasibility is deferred until the title transferred to subsequent
purchaser who is bona fide purchaser as provided in the proviso of 340
(3)
IV. Positionin Malaysia:whether we apply deferred of immediate
(kedudukan bona fide purchaser without notice)
A. 1982 : Mohd Buyoong v PHT Gombak
1. The rigstrar rejected the instrument of transfer as it was signed by the
transferor under invalid power of attorney.
2. The transferee claimed indefeasibility sbb dah register
3. Held: though the transfer is registered, court cakap tetap invalid sbb
pengecualian 340 (2) terpakai

4. B. 2001: Boonson Boonyanit v Adorna Properties Sdn. Bhd.
1. Held: the first transferee would get immediate indefeasible title though the land
was acquired throu forgery as long as the first transferee prove yg dia adalah
bona fide purchaser
C. 2010 : Tan Ying Hong v Tan Sian San & ors
1. The App , registered proprietor of a property.
2. Without the knowledge of the App, the 1st Resp acting under a forged Power of
Attorney(PA), executed 2 charges in favour of the bank to secure a loan for the
2nd Resp.
3. The 2nd Resp defaulted on the repayment and the bank hence demanded
payment from the App.
4. The App sought to declare the charges null and void on the ground that the PA
was forged, but the application was dismissed by the High Court on the grounds
that the App was not “the actual owner of the land” and that Section 340(3) of
the NLC had protected the 3rd Resp (bank/chargee)
5. HELD : 340(2) proves yg Malaysia pakai deferred indefeasibility , only the
subsequent purchaser yang boleh claimed dia adalah bona fie purchaser by the
virtue of 340 (3)(a)
D. Rumusan:
1. Dalam sek 340 ni, transferee cannot automatically claimed diri dia bona fide
purchaser for value without notice, his title remained deferred sampailah di
dapat buktikan yg dia bona fide purchaser.
2. The transferee kena buktikan
i. dia adalah purchaser di bawah sek. 5 dan bukan a mere volunteer
a. dalam sek 340 (3) , the term purchaser refers to subsequent
purchaser
ii. buktikan dia beli dengan good faith sbb he who came to equity must come
with clean hand, so cara pembuktian nya dia mesti tak buat apa2 yang
boleh degrade his claim

5. 3. the fact that kita sediakan pengecualian bawah s. 340(2), buktikita pakai
deferred
V. Howto obtained IT?
A. Pendaftaran
1. Tandatangan borang 14 A ( borang pindah milik), 15A dan 16 A
2. 292 (2) serah pada pejabat tanah
3. 293 sertakan dengan bayaran pendaftaran dan IDT atau pendua pajakan
4. 295 dimasukkan di dalam buku penyerahan
5. 297 -301 pendaftar akan menentukan sama ada layak atau pun tak
6. 304-308 kalau layak akan ikut further procedure dalam sek2 ni
VI. IT is not absolute (where the exception under s. 304 (2) may apply)
A. Provison of S340(2)
Title or interest of any such person or body shall not be indefeasible
(a) fraud or misrepresentation
(b) registration obtained by forgery
(c) title or interest unlawfully acquired
In case of fraud and misrepresentation---there must be proof that person in whose
name the property is registered was party privy to fraud or misrepresentation.
In case of forgery, insufficient or void instrument---there must be proof that
registration was obtained as result of such circumstances.
B. Standard of proof to challenge IT : Adorna Properties Sdn Bhd v Boonsom
Boonyanit
1. Facts:
i. Boonyanit(R) was registered owner of 2 plots of land in Penang-

6. ii. Unknown to her land was transferred by an imposter(penyamar) to A
who held herself out as R-
iii. R challenged the validity of transfer on ground that instrument of transfer
was forged.
2. Held:
i. Standard of proof required is on balance of probabilities.
ii. Despite the instrument of transfer being a forgery, A had nevertheless
acquired indefeasible title by virtue of S340(3) because A is bona fide
purchaser for value.
VII. Exceptions under 340 (2)
A. Frod
1. Maksud frod: Asset Co. Ltd. V Mere Roihi
i. dishonesty and not merely constructive or equitable fraud.
ii. There must be proof that registered proprietor or agent must be
party/privy to fraud.
2. 2 jenis penipuan
i. penipuan terhadap pemegang hak milik atau kepentingan berdaftar yang
terdahulu
ii. penipuan terhadap pemegang kepentingan yang tidak didaftar:-
3. Beban bukti
i. terletak kpd pihak yg mendakwa wujudnya penipuan
ii. Pihak tersebut kena buktikan wujudnya penipuan di dlm keadaan2 di
mana pendaftaran diperolehi
iii. pihak tersebut mestilah terlibat secara langsung (privy) dlm penipuan itu
iv. penipuan mestilah dilakukan sebelum atau pada masa pendaftaran
4. Hajah Aishah v Yah bt Taib

7. i. An illiterate woman was induced to sign an instrument of transfer when
she was told that she was merely signing instrument of charge so to
secure debt owing from her.
ii. Property transferred to Haji Musa who then transferred to D, who also
privy to fraud.
iii. D’s title must be set aside.
5. Haji Junus v Chik & Anor
i. Co-owner sold an undivided share in land to P and D.
ii. P purchased and paid the full price of the undivided share while
iii. D purchased the remaining half share but obtained transfer of whole land
on clear understanding that he would subsequently transfer half share in
land to P.
iv. D failed to do so.
v. As D was privy to fraud, he was not bona fide purchaser for value and so
not entitled to keep disputed half share of land.
6. Official Assignee of the Estate of Koh Liang Hee v Koh Thong Chuan
i. Pindahmilik antara sibapa & Def satu penipuan dan terbatal.
ii. Maka hakmilik Def atas harta tersebut boleh ditamatkan.
iii. Bila hakmilik ditamatkan, konsep tidak boleh disangkal tidak lagi
terpakai.
iv. Maknanya Def tdk punya hakmilik pada bila-bila masa pun.
v. Jadi tidak boleh wujudkan gadaian sah.
vi. Oleh itu gadaian tdk dilindungi oleh Sek. 340(1)
7. Tara Rajaretnam v Datuk Jagindar Singh & Ors
Facts
 P agreed to transfer her land to D as security for advance of money in favour of D
 Ds, were solicitors who acted for P in preparation of necessary documents.
 Land was transferred to D by memorandum of transfer but there was agreement
providing that land would not be sold to another person without P’s consent and D

8. also undertook to transfer land back to P
 Ds transferred to 3rd D, 3rd D transferred to development company which was
almost wholly owned by 1st D.
 Land was subdivided and sold to public.
Held  Fraud may be caused by dishonestly registering interest and then transferring the
interest even before the ink is dry to another person without consent of original
proprietor.
 Fraud must be actual, involve dishonesty of some sort and may occur where
designed object of transfer is to cheat a person of existing right or where by a
deliberate and dishonest act a person is deprived of his existing right.
 Court awarded examplary damages to plaintif but cannot get back the title
 The company which bought the land from the 3rd defendant who is the bona fide
purchaser masih dapat tanah tu sbb ada hak yang tak boleh disangkal
B. Misrepresentation
1. Tara Rajaretnam v Datuk Jagindar Singh
i. The term misrepresentation refers to fraudulent misrepresentation and
is therefore a specie of fraud.
2. S17 Contract Act
i. The suggestion, as to a fact, of that which is not true by one who does not
believe it to be true
ii. The active concealment of a fact by one having knowledge or belief of the
fact
iii. A promise made without any intention of performing it
iv. Any other act fitted to deceive
v. Any such act or omission as the law specially declares to be fraudulent

9. 3. Datuk Jagindar Singh
i. S340(2)(a) fraud or misrepresentation means either actual fraud or
fraudulent misrepresentation or both.
ii. Fraud under Torrens system is wider in meaning than CL fraudulent
misrepresentation.
C. Forgery
1. Ong Lock Cho v Quek Shin & Sons Ltd
iii. Registered owner gave DOT to solicitor for purpose of creating charge.
Solicitor’s clerk by forgery created charge in favor of another person.
Charge nullity.
2. Gibbs v Messer
i. A person who deals with forger cannot acquire valid title, although the
fact of his being registered owner will enable him to pass valid title to 3rd
Insufficient or void instrument
D. Void and Insufficient instrument
1. Tan Hee Juan v The Boon Keat
i. Instrument of transfer executed by infant in respect of property was void.
2. Puran Singh v Kehar Singh
i. Instrument of transfer executed by attorney acting in pursuance of
invalid power of attorney is insufficient instrument.
3. Appoo v Ellamah
ii. Instrument of dealing effected pursuant to transaction which
contravened Moneylenders Ordinance is void instrument.

10. E. Unlawful acquisition
1. Section 304 (2)(c): dah laid down bila dikatakan unlawful acquisition
(a) statutory vesting land that is ultra vires the statutory power
(b) registration of title or interest is obtained through non-compliance with the
statutory requirements of the NLC.
(c) acquisition of land under invalid power of attorney
2. Contoh (c ): Mohd Buyoong v PHT Gombak
VIII. Pengecualianekuiti
A. Wilkin v Kanmanal : sistem torenadalah sitem pemindahan hak dan tidak
membatalkan kaedah ekuiti
IX. Kesan if pengecualian terpakai is the title becomes defeasible
A. S340(3)
3. Where title or interest of proprietor is defeasible by reason of any of
circumstances in (2), title or interest shall be liable to be set aside in hands
of any person or body to whom it may subsequently be transferred.
B. Proviso : title or interest acquired by bona fide purchaser for value and any
person or body claiming through him is nevertheless safeguarded.
X. Batasan MASA
C. S341
There is no way in which registered owner’s title can be lost to another as result
of adverse possession however long it might have been. The Limitation Act 1935
shall in no circumstance operate to extinguish the owner’s title in the said land.