Case sarawak properties sdn bhd v

Subsection 3 says that where that title is defeasible under any of the three circumstances enumerated under subsection 2the title of the registered proprietor to whom the land was subsequently transferred under the forged document, is liable to be set aside.

The same arguments which the parties had put before both the High Court and the Court of Appeal were again argued before us. Subsection 1 of s NLC deals with everyone of them as long as he is currently a registered proprietor of that piece of land. We allow this appeal with costs here and the courts below to be taxed and paid by the respondent to the appellant.

However, subsection 3 of s NLC does not stop there. When the word "such" occurs in a section it must not be ignored, but must be read as referring back to the preceding provision - Ellis v Ellis [] 1 WLR The proviso says that any purchaser in good faith and for valuable consideration or any person or body claiming through or under him are excluded from the application of the substantive provision of subsection 3.

He might have become a registered proprietor of the land because he had bought it, or he got it by way of a gift, or by way of transmission upon the death of his parent or spouse. Provided that nothing in this sub-section shall affect any title or interest acquired by any purchaser in good faith and for valuable consideration, or by any person or body claiming through or under such a purchaser.

Before the sale, the lands had been valued by an independent property valuer. Hence this appeal to the Federal Court.

The High Court dismissed the plaintiffs claim that she plaintiff be restored, as the registered owner of the lands. Therefore, to follow the arguments in earlier decisions not based on s of the NLC would only lead to utter confusion.

Boonsom Boonyanit had forged her the plaintiffs signature, and had sold and transferred her lands to the defendant Adorna Properties Sdn Bhd which is the appellant in this appeal. The object of a proviso is to qualify or limit something which has gone before it.

On appeal the Court of Appeal reversed the order of the High Court.

Its proper function is to except and deal with a case which would otherwise fall within the general language of the main provision of the statute, and its effect is confined to that case. We are concerned here with subsection 2 b where the registration had been obtained by forgery.

We, therefore, agree with the High Court Judge that, on the facts of this case, even if the instrument of transfer was forged, the respondent nevertheless obtained an indefeasible title to the said lands. Section of the NLC states - In other words, the object of a proviso is to carve out from the substantive section or clause of a statute, a class or category of persons or things to whom or to which the main section does not apply.

Before us, two questions of law were posed for decision and the first is - For proof of forgery such as the one under appeal, whether the standard of proof is on balance of probabilities, or on beyond reasonable doubt?

Who are these proprietors? For this category of registered proprietors they obtained immediate indefeasibility notwithstanding that they acquired their titles under a forged document.

The appellant, Adorna Properties claimed that it had no knowledge that the transfer documents were forged by someone who was not the true owner, and had no reason to suspect that they were forged. Subsection 2 of s NLC uses the word "such".

Subsection 2 states that the title of any such person, i. It is a cardinal rule of interpretation that a proviso to a particular section or provision of a statute only embraces the field which is covered by the main provision.

The High Court held that forgery must be proved beyond reasonable doubt, while the Court of Appeal held that it should be on a balance of probabilities. Therefore, a piece of land may have one proprietor or many co-proprietors.

She claimed that she was the true Mrs. The detailed facts of this case can be found in the High Court judgment which is reported in [] 2 AMR It contains a proviso. We are aware that any sovereign country may adopt and apply the Torrens system, but in adopting the system, it may modify the system to suit its own needs.

The other question put for argument and decision in this appeal is - Whether the defendant, a bona fide purchaser for valuable consideration without notice, acquired an indefeasible title to the properties the lands by virtue of s 3 of the National Land Code ?

It says that the "title or interest of any person for the time being registered as proprietor of any land The High Court Judge had stated in his judgment that had he adopted the balance of probability standard of proof, there was sufficient evidence to show that the plaintiffs signature was forged.

We must bear in mind that a person may be registered as the sole proprietor or as a co-proprietor of a piece of land, but he is for the purpose of this section, still a registered proprietor. The proviso cannot be divorced from the main clause to which it is attached.

It excludes from the main provision of subsection 3 this category of registered proprietors so that these proprietors are not caught by the main provision of this sub-section. It must be considered together with the section or subsection of the statute to which it stands as a proviso.

The proviso to subsection 3 of s of the NLC dealt with only one class or category of registered proprietors for the time being. So long as his name is on the land register, his title or interest is indefeasible unless caught by subsections 2 and 3.To return to Ahmad bin Salleh & Ors v Rawang Hills Resort Sdn Bhd, if we may say so with respect, the High Court at Shah Alam's understanding of the Peninsular Land Developmentcase and the then Supreme Court case of M & J Frozen Food Sdn Bhd & Anor v Siland Sdn Bhd & Anor [] 1 MLJ and Macon Engineers Sdn Bhd v 5/5(1).

Revenue cited the case of Sarawak Properties Sdn. Bhd. v The DGIR [] 4 AMR as being “on all fours with the instant case” in support of the points made in (2) above. However, e-CIRCULAR TO MEMBERS CHARTERED. CASE: SARAWAK PROPERTIES SDN BHD v THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF INLAND REVENUE ISSUE: Whether the tax treatment of income accrued and the expenditures incurred in respect of the appellant’s property development activities regarding the two projects, namely the shop house project and the TAR Centre.

Case UMBC v Syarikat Perumahan Luas Sdn Bhd Charge registered in breach of from SCIENCE at SMK Lukut. Now, the facts of this case upon which the present application arises have been well rehearsed in the main judgment as well in the judgment of the Court of Appeal, (see Adorna Properties Sdn Bhd v Boonsom Boonyanit [] 1 AMR ; [] 1 MLJ and Boonsom Boonyanit v Adorna Properties Sdn Bhd [] 2 AMR ; [] 2.

Land Law in Sarawak ISBN: Author: Nasser Hamid and Prof Salleh Effect of Decision in Adorna Properties Sdn Bhd v Boonsom Boonyanit Stating a Special Case for the Federal Court Methods of Effecting Service Registration

Case sarawak properties sdn bhd v
Rated 4/5 based on 37 review