Please enable JavaScript.

Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.

Tuan Haji Mustafa, ISSUE 3: Whether Tuan Haji Mustafa can bring a claim…

- - - - Shayo: negligence was established as defendants had fallen short of the standard that was expected of a public authority and its officers. The administrative shortcomings amounting to negligence and breach of duty essentially was a violation of the plaintiff's constitutional right under Article 13(1) of the Federal Constitution
        
        Tuan Haji Mustafa can make a claim of negligence and subsequently claim back his title, because
        
        Tuan Haji Mustafa filled in a form to apply for an extension of period of the title, which was advised by the clerk in the first place
        
        Tuan Haji Mustafa received a letter from the Land Office that his application has been approved
        
        Tuan Haji Mustafa even informed the clerk to post the new title to his address which they were capable of earlier, but incapable after payment
        
        The officers should have registered him as the proprietor of the land as per his forms. Failure shows that they have fallen short of the duty they owe towards Tuan Haji Mustafa; duty to accurately enter the details received
        
        Tuan Haji Mustafa's rights under Article 13 of the Federal Constitution are infringed.
  - - - Shayo: court held that the land office had breached its statutory duties because
        
        no notification to the plaintiff as proprietor to take delivery of the computerised IDT
        
        Tuan Haji Mustafa did not receive any notification to take the IDT in exchange for the manual IDT
        
        no cancellation or destruction of the manual IDT in the name and possession of the plaintiff proprietor
        
        There was no destruction of manual IDT which is currently in Tuan Haji Mustafa's possession
        
        Thus, Tuan Haji Mustafa can claim on the ground of breach of statutory duty and regain title
        
        plaintiff was never issued with the title in computerised IDT in its name
        
        Tuan Haji Mustafa was not issued with the title in computerised IDT
        
        breach of Fourteenth Schedule is ultra vires; deprivation of right under Article 13(1) of the Constitution
        
        The breach is depriving Tuan Haji Mustafa's right under Article 13(1)
        
        The IDT issued is void and subsequent bona fide purchasers for value cannot avail themselves of the protection under s340(3) NLC
  - - - The tortfeasors here would be the clerk, the registrar, the land administrator and the officers responsible for issuing the computerised title deed.
- - - - Section 76(a): the term must not exceed 90 years
        
        Tuan Haji Mustafa applied for the extention of the leasehold title for another 60 years to the Land Office
    - - Teong Teck Lean & Anor v Pentadbir Tanah Daerah Johor Bahru [2019] MLJU 29: After the expiry of the term, the State Government will not entertain any application
        
        The leasehold title expires of the 13th October 2019 but Tuan Haji Mustafa applied for the extention in October 2018.
    - - Section 78(3): Registration of register document of title
        
        Pushpaleela a/p R Selvarajah & Anor v Rajamani d/o Meyappa Chettiar and other appeals [2019] 2 MLJ 553: Endorsement of the registration of title
        
        Tuan Haji Mustafa did not hear anything from the Land Office and did not reveice his new register document of title or issue document of title
    - - Tuan Haji Mustafa was the one who applied to the Land Office. Thus, it shows that he consents to the extention of the leasehold title.
    - - subject to the payment of premium or other charges prescribed by the State Authority
        
        Loh Tina & Ors v Kemuning Setia Sdn Bhd & Ors and another appeal [2020] MLJU 635: extension of the leasehold title of the property upon payment of premium
        
        The Land Office approved Tuan Haji Mustafa's application to extend the terms through a letter. Subsequently, Tuan Haji Mustafa paid RM75,000 from his EPF to the Land Office
    - - Form 5A was attached to the letter sent from the Land Office in February 2019 in stating the land revenue that was due
    - - The Land Office did not contact Tuan Haji Mustafa ever since he made his payment of RM75,000
- - - - How to prove?
        
        Chong Su Kong & Others V Sia Hiong Yee & Others [2010] MLJU 957:
        Plaintiffs had the choice to determine their mode of proof (In this case: they chose to prove the forgery by direct evidence of the plaintiffs and expert).
        It is on the discretion of the court to determine whether the evidence is enough to prove forgery after that.
        
        Tuan Haji Mustafa can prove to the court by any means that will be sufficient to prove the case of forgery on the balance of probabilities.
        
        If there is direct evidence and circumstantial evidence such as in the Boonsom Boonyanit, he can bring it to prove the forgery
        
        He can also bring expert handwriting to prove that the signature on the instrument of transfer is not him.
        
        He can also call the attestator of the instrument of transfer as the witness.
        
        The court in Letchumanan Chettiar Alagappan Anor v Secure Plantation Sdn Bhd [2017] MLJU 379 referred to:
        
        AGS Harta Sdn Bhd v Liew Yoke Chui- it is neither a prerequisite nor a rule of law that forgery could only be founded based on an expert’s opinion.
        
        Lee Ing Chin v Gan Yoke Chin - it is safe to prefer the direct evidence over the handwriting expert.
        
        Court of Appeal in Boonsom Boonyanit:
        Direct evidence: The appellant’s son said that the signature on the instrument of transfer is not his mother’s signature.
        Circumstantial evidences: The appellant proved that she was not in Malaysia at the material time and the passport number in the impugned documents was from the forged passport.
- - - - The Federal Court judge reaffirmed this position in Ong Chat Pang & Anor v Valiappa Chettiar [1971] 1 MLJ 224 where the court further observed that if there are no vitiating factors that to such title, it will confer indefeasibility.
        
        It can be further supported by judgement made in Federal Court case of PJTV Denson (M) Sdn Bhd & Ors v Roxy (M) Sdn Bhd [1980] 2 MLJ 136 , where in the event when the title was acquired out of forgery, indefeasibility shall not be conferred and thus, the registration is defeated.
        
        At this junture, the fact that Razman is being claimed to be the newly registered proprietor out of the Land Office’s computerized land registration system, shall be deemed enforceable, hence Razman has an indefeasible title over the land.
- - - - Deferred indefeasibility
        
        Razman may obtain it by deferred indefeasibility provided that he is a bona-fide purchaser.
  - - - Razman can claim protection as a bona fide purchaser under proviso in Section 340(3) of the National Land Code provided that he can prove to the Court that he satisfies the requirements of being a bona-fide purchaser for valuable consideration without notice.
        
        However, since Tuan Haji Mustafa's right enshrined under Article 13(1) of the Federal Constitution has been infringed due to administrative shortcomings which conferred title to Razman, Tuan's rights prevail over the probable protection Razman can claim here. Essentially, Razman cannot claim protection as a bona fide purchaser under proviso in Section 340(3) of the National Land Code due to the supremacy of the Constitution as enumerated in Article 4(1).
    - - Reaffirmed in Liputan Simfoni Sdn Bhd v Pembangunan Orkid Desa Sdn Bhd [2019] 4 MLJ 141