Kechara World Peace Centre Sdn Bhd v Poon Soon Lean (BA-22NCvC-84-02/2022)

KECHARA WORLD PEACE CENTRE SDN. BHD. (NO. SYARIKAT: 771964-H) (Dahulunya dikenali sebagai Everise Serene Sdn. Bhd)

OOI BENG KOOI (NO. K/P: 771201-14-5552) ...PLAINTIF-PLAINTIF

PENDAFTAR HAK MILIK, PEJABAT TANAH DAN GALIAN SELANGOR ...DEFENDAN-DEFENDAN JUDGMENT Introduction

These proceedings concern two suits which were heard together, namely BA-22NCvC-437-11/2021 ("Suit 437") and BA-22NCvC-84-02/2022 ("Suit 84"). It was agreed by all parties that Suit 437 would proceed as the anchor suit.

The suits concern competing claims over title and interests in a parcel of land involving, on the one hand, the Plaintiff and the Third Defendant in Suit 437, and on the other hand, the Plaintiffs in Suit 84, one of whom is also the Third Defendant in Suit 437, together with the First Defendant, who is in turn the Plaintiff in Suit 437. The identities of the remaining parties and their respective roles in the impugned transactions will be elaborated upon in the ensuing sections of this Judgment.

It is apparent from the evidence adduced that this is yet another unfortunate case involving disputed land transactions marred by allegations of fraud, irregular dealings, and competing assertions of title. As is often the case in disputes of this nature, the Court is confronted with the difficult reality that the resolution of the competing claims may result in hardship to one or more parties, notwithstanding that the true perpetrators of the alleged fraud or irregularities may ultimately remain beyond the reach of these proceedings. The Competing Claimants and their Respective Claims

The competing claimants to the title of the said land are, on the one hand, Pong Soon Lean, who is the Plaintiff in Suit 437 and the First Defendant in Suit 84, and on the other hand, Kechara World Peace Centre Sdn Bhd ("Kechara World"), the Third Defendant in Suit 437 and one of the Plaintiffs in Suit 84. The other Plaintiff in Suit 84 is Ooi Beng Kooi.

At the outset, it is not in dispute that Kechara World is the registered proprietor of the said land. The original Issue Document of Title has at all material times remained in Kechara World's possession.

However, it is also not in dispute that a copy of the Issue Document of Title was issued in Pong Soon Lean's name. This forms one of the central factual controversies in these proceedings.

The other Plaintiff in Suit 84, Ooi Beng Kooi, claims to have entered into a sale and purchase agreement dated 2 July 2019 with Kechara World in respect of the said land. Pursuant thereto, Ooi Beng Kooi caused a private caveat to be entered over the said land on 12 March 2020.

It is Kechara World's case that the circumstances giving rise to the present dispute first came to light in or around March 2021, when an employee of Kechara World discovered, during the course of making quit rent and assessment payments, that Pong Soon Lean's name appeared in the land office records in relation to the said land, notwithstanding that the original Issue Document of Title remained in Kechara World's possession.

Following this discovery, Kechara World asserted that further enquiries were conducted, including a land search, which revealed attempts by unknown third parties to deal with the said land, including dealings relating to the withdrawal of Ooi Beng Kooi's private caveat.

In response, Kechara World stated that it took protective steps, including lodging police reports and engaging with the relevant land authorities to safeguard its interest in the said land.

It is further Kechara World's case that on 19 March 2021, representatives of Kechara World and Ooi Beng Kooi attended at the relevant land office and were informed by an officer that the land dealings had not been finalised, and that the land office would conduct an internal investigation pending clarification of the status of the said land.

Kechara World further alleged that police reports were subsequently lodged by its directors, as well as by Ooi Beng Kooi, arising from concerns over attempted or suspected fraudulent dealings in respect of the said land.

It is also Kechara World's case that, following these events, it made arrangements to dispose of the said land; however, during a site visit by a prospective purchaser's representative on 30 June 2021, it was allegedly observed that unidentified persons were in occupation of the land and claiming authority from the owner.

Subsequently, Kechara World commenced proceedings by way of Originating Summons [No. BA-24NCVC-968-08/2021] against Pong Soon Lean, the Director of Lands and Mines Selangor, and the Registrar of Titles, seeking declaratory relief in respect of its title to the said land.

In response, Pong Soon Lean filed an affidavit asserting, inter alia, the existence of a sale and purchase agreement dated 10 November 2020, under which the said land was purportedly agreed to be sold for RM2.5 million. Pong Soon Lean further alleged that a firm of solicitors, Messrs Ramlah & Associates, had acted in relation to the transaction.

Kechara World denied the existence of any such agreement and further denied that Messrs Ramlah & Associates or that any individual acting through that firm was authorised to act on its behalf in relation to any proposed disposal of the said land.

Pong Soon Lean, who had also initiated Suit 437 in November 2021, subsequently applied to amend her Statement of Claim in May 2024 to include Raghunathan a/l Jaaganathan, alleging that he was a representative of Kechara World and was involved in negotiations and documentation relating to the alleged transaction. These allegations are likewise denied by Kechara World.

As matters presently stand, both Kechara World and Pong Soon Lean claim competing entitlement arising from possession of documents purporting to relate to title to the said land. Other Relevant Actors

In addition to the principal claimants, the other parties involved in these proceedings are:

(a) Raghunathan a/l Jaganatha ("Raghunathan"), the Second Defendant in Suit 437;

(b) Ramlah Begum binti Mohamed Ibrahim ("Ramlah Begum”), the First Defendant in the main action and Second Defendant in the counterclaim in Suit 437; and

(c) the Director of Lands and Mines Selangor and the Registrar of Titles, who are respectively named as the Fourth and Fifth Defendants in Suit 437, and the Second and Third Defendants in Suit 84.

Raghunathan has not entered an appearance to the present suit.

For completeness, the reliefs sought by Pong Soon Lean in Suit 437 are as outlined at paragraphs 67(a) to 67(s) of her Amended Statement of Claim and they are as follows: a) suatu deklarasi bahawa Perjanjian Jual Beli di antara Kechara World Peace Centre Sdn Bhd (No.Syarikat: 771963-H) dan Pong Soon Lean (No.K/P: 820826-07- 5126) adalah sah dibawah undang-undang; b) suatu deklarasi bahawa Plaintif (Pong Soon Lean) sebagai pembeli bona fide telah membayar harga pembelian sebanyak RM2,500,000.00 kepada Defendan Ketiga bagi membeli sebidang tanah yang dipegang dibawah Hak Milik Geran No: 33386, Lot No.3751, Mukim Setapak, Daerah Gombak, Negeri Selangor Darul Ehsan ("Tanah tersebut"); c) suatu deklarasi bahawa Defendan Pertama disifatkan sebagai ejen kepada Defendan Ketiga; d) suatu deklarasi bahawa Defendan Kedua adalah ejen kepada Defendan Ketiga; e) suatu deklarasi bahawa Plaintif adalah seorang pembeli bona fide bagi "valuable consideration" dan mempunyai hak milik "indefeasible" bagi tanah tersebut; f) suatu Perintah Perlaksanaan Spesifik ("specific performance") berkenaan Perjanjian Jual Beli bertarikh 10.11.2020 oleh Defendan Ketiga dan Defendan Ketiga menyerahkan hak milik yang sah kepada Plaintif; g) suatu Perintah bahawa Defendan Ketiga dalam masa tiga puluh (30) hari dari tarikh Perintah/Penghakiman untuk menyerahkan semua dokumen-dokumen mustahak termasuk dan tidak terhad kepada Memorandum Pindahmilik yang dilaksanakan oleh Defendan Ketiga kepada Peguambela dan Peguamcara yang dilantik oleh Plaintif bagi pindahmilik kepada Defendan Keempat dan Defendan Kelima; h) suatu Perintah bahawa selepas Defendan Keempat dan Defendan Kelima menerima kesemua dokumen-dokumen relevan daripada Defendan Ketiga mengisukan Hak Milik yang baru atas nama Plaintif; i) suatu deklarasi bahawa Hak Milik Asal 2 No: 33386, Lot No. 3751, Mukim Setapak, Daerah Gombak, Negeri Selangor Darul Ehsan yang diisukan oleh Defendan Keempat dan Defendan Kelima adalah sah dan "indefeasible"; j) suatu deklarasi bahawa Defendan Pertama sebagai Peguamcara yang bertindak bagi pihak Plaintif telah memindahmilik Hak Milik Geran No: 33386, Lot No. 3751, Mukim Setapak, Daerah Gombak, Negeri Selangor Darul Ehsan ("Tanah tersebut") secara sempurna ke atas nama Plaintif; k) Secara alternatif, sekiranya Mahkamah yang Mulia ini mendapati bahawa Defendan Pertama adalah cuai, suatu Perintah bahawa Defendan Pertama membayar Plaintif wang berjumlah RM2,500,000.00 bagi kehilangan dan kerugian Plaintif atas sebab kecuaian Defendan Pertama termasuk faedah pada kadar enam (6%) peratus daripada 10.11.2020 dan kos bagi Writ Saman berjumlah RM200,000.00 berserta alokatur, I) suatu Perintah bahawa Defendan Kedua membayar RM460,000.00 kepada Plaintif: m) suatu deklarasi bahawa selaras dengan Perjanjian Jual Beli bertarikh 10.11.2020, nama Plaintif telah dipindahmilik dan didaftar atas Hak Milik Geran No: 33386, Lot No.3751, Mukim Setapak, Daerah Gombak, Negeri Selangor Darul Ehsan dan Hak Milik Asal dan Pelan Tanah Asal telah diisukan dan dikeluarkan oleh Defendan Keempat dan Defendan Kelima dan diserahkan kepada Plaintif mengikat Defendan Ketiga, n) Seterusnya dan secara alternatif, sekiranya perlaksanaan spesifik Perjanjian Jual Beli tidak diperintahkan oleh Mahkamah yang Mulia ini, suatu Perintah bahawa Defendan Keempat dan Defendan Kelima membayar wang berjumlah RM2,500,000.00 kepada Plaintif bagi kehilangan dan kerugian yang dialami oleh Plaintif atas sebab kecuaian Defendan Keempat dan Defendan Kelima termasuk faedah pada kadar enam (6%) peratus daripada 10.11.2020 dan kos bagi Writ Saman berjumlah RM200,000.00 berserta alokatur; o) suatu Perintah bahawa Hak Milik Asal dan Pelan Tanah Asal Hak Milik Geran No: 33386, Lot No.3751, Mukim Setapak, Daerah Gombak, Negeri Selangor Darul Ehsan atas nama Plaintif dikekalkan dan dipegang oleh Plaintif; p) secara alternatif, gantirugi sebanyak RM2,500,000.00 terhadap Defendan Pertama, Defendan Kedua, Defendan Ketiga, dan Defendan Keempat dan Defendan Kelima; q) faedah pada kadar 5% setahun daripada tarikh Writ Saman ke atas Gantirugi yang diawadkan sehingga penyelesaian penuh; r) kos; dan s) relif lain atau selanjutnya yang dianggap sesuai oleh Mahkamah ini.

As the Third Defendant in Suit 437, Kechara World's main prayer is for Pong Soon Lean's prayers at paragraphs 67(a) to 67(s) of the Amended Statement of Claim be struck out and dismissed in its entirety with costs.

More significantly, Kechara World has filed a counterclaim in Suit 437 against both Pong Soon Lean (the Plaintiff) and Ramlah Begum (the First Defendant), seeking general damages to be assessed, exemplary and punitive damages, aggravated damages, court costs, fees and court expenses [on an indemnity basis] and interest of 5% per annum on any costs awarded by this Court.

In its Suit 84, Kechara World is seeking the following reliefs:

(a) A declaration that the Plaintiff is the valid registered owner of GRN 33386, Lot No. 3751, Mukim Setapak, Daerah Gombak, Negeri Selangor Darul Ehsan ["the said plot of Land"];

(b) A declaration that the First Defendant is not the valid registered owner of the said plot of Land;

(c) An Order that the First Defendant return her Issued Document of Title registered under the First Defendant's name to the Second and Third Defendant within 21 days of this Order, for the said Issued Document of Title to be cancelled immediately;

(d) An Order that if the First Defendant does not comply the above-mentioned order the Second and Third Defendant may seize and cancel all dealings by the First Defendant with regards to the records of transactions and dealings registering the First Defendant as registered owner;

(e) An Order restricting the Second and Third Defendants from issuing any new versions of the Issued Document of Title for the said plot of Land until further orders of this Court;

(f) A declaratory Order that the Second Plaintiff's private caveat Registration Number 12568/2020 be declared valid and restored until further orders of this Court;

(g) An order that the Second Defendant gives the Plaintiff all documents of dealings involving the fraudulent transfer of property No.17278/2021 dated 08.03.2021 and the two name changes via Submission No. 8715/2021 and 8716/2021 dated 08.03.2021 and removal of the Second Plaintiff's private caveat Submission No.8714/2021 dated 08.03.2021;

(h) An Order that the Second and Third Defendants give immediate effect to all orders of this Court;

(i) Costs to be borne by First Defendant: and

(j) Any other reliefs this Court deems fit and suitable. The Essential Issues

Against the factual and procedural background outlined above, the principal issue for determination is whether Pong Soon Lean has established any legal or equitable basis sufficient to defeat, displace, or otherwise impugn Kechara World's registered title to the said land. Put differently, the fundamental question before this Court is whether Kechara World remains the lawful and indefeasible registered proprietor of the said land notwithstanding the competing claims advanced by Pong Soon Lean.

In resolving that central issue, several interconnected questions necessarily arise, including:

(a) whether the alleged sale and purchase agreement dated 10 November 2020 was in fact entered into and is legally enforceable;

(b) whether any individual or firm, including Raghunathan a/l Jaganatha and Messrs Ramlah & Associates, possessed authority to act on behalf of Kechara World in relation to the alleged transaction;

(c) whether the issuance or existence of any title or document purporting to register Pong Soon Lean as proprietor was lawful or was tainted by fraud, illegality, or procedural irregularity;

(d) whether Pong Soon Lean is entitled to the protection accorded to a bona fide purchaser for valuable consideration; and

(e) whether the respective claims, counterclaims, and reliefs sought against the remaining Defendants, including the land authorities and Ramlah Begum, have been established on the evidence and in law.

This Court shall therefore proceed to examine the evidence and the applicable law in relation to each of these issues. Proceedings During Trial

The Notes of Proceedings in Enclosure 146 record that Suit 437 and Suit 84 were heard together, as both actions concerned the same parcel of land and arose from the same disputed transfer and competing claims relating thereto. The Court further directed that the evidence adduced in Suit 437 would also apply for the purposes of Suit 84.

The trial and related hearings were conducted on 15.01.2025, 16.01.2025, 17.01.2025, 11.04.2025, 25.08.2025, 26.08.2025, 17.10.2025, 29.01.2026, and 30.01.2026.

The Notes of Proceedings in Suit 437 further identify the witnesses called during the course of the trial. In total, ten witnesses testified before this Court, namely: No.Witness StatementName of WitnessParty1.WSPW1Pong Soon LeanPlaintiff2.WSPW2Chong Wei KeePlaintiff's Witness3.WSDW1Ramlah Begum binti Mohamed IbrahimFirst Defendant4.WSD3W1Thong Jiunn PerngThird Defendant's Witness5.WSD3W2Ooi Seong HuatThird Defendant's Witness6.WSD3W3Ooi Beng KooiThird Defendant's Witness7.WSD3W4Iskandar bin AzamanThird Defendant's Expert Witness

8.WSD4W1Ahmad Sazali bin SelamatFourth & Fifth Defendants' Witness9.WSD4W2Nasrul Faiz bin FirdausFourth & Fifth Defendants' Witness10.WSD4W3Nurilda Hayati binti MisnanFourth & Fifth Defendants' Witness The case for Pong Soon Lean

The case for Pong Soon Lean (the Plaintiff in Suit 437) proceeds on two alternative limbs.

First, the Plaintiff maintained that she entered into a valid and enforceable Sale and Purchase Agreement dated 10 November 2020 for the purchase of the said land at the purchase price of RM2,500,000.00. She further averred that the full purchase price was paid, that the transfer was duly registered in her favour, and that the Issue Document of Title was subsequently issued and delivered to her through the First Defendant.

On this basis, the Plaintiff's primary case is proprietary in nature. She seeks restoration and recognition of her registered title to the said land on the footing that her registration, once effected, ought to be maintained.

It is further her case that any subsequent removal or reversal of her name from the land register was effected following complaints made by the Third Defendant and administrative actions taken by the land authorities, notwithstanding that she had already been registered as proprietor.

Secondly, in the alternative, the Plaintiff contended that if this Court finds that her registration is defective or liable to be set aside under section 340 of the National Land Code on the basis of forgery, insufficient instrument, or void instrument, she is nonetheless entitled to monetary relief.

Such alternative relief is pursued against those Defendants whose acts, omissions, misrepresentations, or breaches of duty caused the failed conveyance and consequent loss. In substance, Pong Soon Lean's alternative claim against the other Defendants in Suit 437 is grounded in negligence, misrepresentation, and/or breach of duty arising out of their respective roles in the impugned transaction.

Pong Soon Lean's factual case is that she entered into the Sale and Purchase Agreement dated 10 November 2020 through arrangements facilitated by the Second Defendant, who represented himself as the agent of the Kechara World and who introduced the Ramlah Begum as the solicitor handling the transaction.

Pong Soon Lean further averred that she paid the full purchase price of RM2,500,000.00 in accordance with the agreed payment structure. Following completion steps, a land search reflected her as registered proprietor, and the original Issue Document of Title in her name was subsequently delivered to her through Ramlah Begum's office.

Pong Soon Lean's position is that these matters are supported by the agreed facts and documentary evidence, including the payment trail, correspondence, and land office documentation in the common bundle.

In particular, Pong Soon Lean relied on documentary evidence showing the sequence of payments, including the initial instruction and authorisation to Ramlah Begum's firm, followed by successive payments made towards the purchase price and related stamp duty and legal formalities, culminating in submission of the transfer documents to the land office and issuance of the title in her favour.

Pong Soon Lean further contended that negotiations were substantially conducted through her husband, who dealt with the Second Defendant, the latter having represented that he was acting on behalf of Kechara World and having produced purported authority documentation to that effect.

It is also Pong Soon Lean's case that after her registration as proprietor, her title was subsequently removed or reversed following complaints by the Third Defendant and subsequent actions taken at the land office, thereby giving rise to the present dispute.

In summary, Pong Soon Lean's case is that she was at all material times a purchaser who acted in good faith, paid valuable consideration, and acquired registration through the formal land registration system; and that if her title is ultimately impeached under section 340 of the National Land Code, she is nevertheless entitled to be compensated by those responsible for the defective or fraudulent transaction chain.

The cases relied by Pong Soon Lean include Tan Ying Hong v Tan Sian San & Ors [2010] 1 MLRA 1; [2010] 2 CLJ 269; [2010] 1 AMR 557; [2010] 2 MLJ 1, Samuel Naik Siang Ting v Public Bank Bhd [2015] 8 CLJ 944; [2015] 6 MLJ 1; [2015] 5 MLRA 665; [2018] 3 AMR 259, Mulpha Kluang Maritime Carriers Sdn Bhd v Philip Koh Tong Ngee & Ors [2015] 8 CLJ 555; [2015] MLRHU 1362; [2016] 10 MLJ 519; [2015] 6 AMR 259, Pendaftar Hakmilik, Pejabat Pendaftaran Wilayah Persekutuan Kuala Lumpur & Anor v Poh Yang Hong [2016] 9 CLJ 297; [2016] 6 AMR 595; [2016] 6 MLJ 413; [2016] 6 MLRA 257 and Uptown Properties Sdn Bhd v Pentadbir Tanah Wilayah Persekutuan & Ors [2012] 3 CLJ 271; [2012] 2 MLRH 270; [2012] 8 MLJ 713; [2012] 2 AMR 653. The Case for Kechara World

The case for Kechara World in Suit 437 (its defence) and Suit 84 (its claim) is founded on a simple but fundamental premise, that is, that Kechara World is and has always been the lawful registered proprietor of the subject land, and no valid sale or transfer to Pong Soon Lean ever took place. No Valid Sale and Purchase Agreement

Kechara World's primary position is that it never entered into any Sale and Purchase Agreement dated 10 November 2020 with Pong Soon Lean. The alleged agreement relied upon by Pong Soon Lean is categorically denied.

Kechara World's case is that: - The signatures on the purported SPA and related documents were forged; - Neither of Kechara World's directors, namely DW3W1 (JP Thong) and DW3W2 (Ooi Seong Huat), signed the said SPA nor authorised any such transaction; and - The alleged contractual documentation is therefore not binding and void ab initio.

Kechara World further argued that this denial is not bare assertion but instead supported by: - Direct oral testimony of both directors (DW3W1 and DW3W2), unequivocally denying execution of the SPA or any transfer documents; - Document examiner's expert evidence (DW3W4), confirming that the questioned signatures materially differ from specimen signatures and could not be authenticated as those of Kechara World's directors. Fraudulent Documentation and Stolen Security Papers

Kechara World further relied on evidence demonstrating that the impugned title documents relied upon by Pong Soon Lean were not genuine, including: - Evidence from the Land Office confirming that the relevant issued document of title bore serial numbers from a batch of stolen security papers; - Testimony that such documents were reported missing and subsequently misused for fraudulent transactions; and - Police reports and contemporaneous complaints lodged upon discovery of suspicious dealings affecting the land.

Such evidential matrix, according to Kechara World, supports its contention that the entire transaction relied upon by Pong Soon Lean was tainted by fraud and illegality from inception. No Agency Relationship with "Raghu"

Pong Soon Lean's case rests heavily on alleged dealings through a third party referred to as "Raghu", said to be Kechara World's agent.

On this, Kechara World's position is that, first, such person was ever appointed, authorised, or known to Kechara World. Second, no board resolution, written authority, or communication exists appointing any such agent and third, the alleged reliance on "Raghu" is unsupported by admissible evidence, particularly as he was not called as a witness.

Accordingly, Kechara World submitted that Pong Soon Lean's allegation of agency is unproven and speculative, and cannot bind Kechara World. Documentary and Contemporaneous Evidence Supporting Kechara's Title

In contrast, Kechara World relied on documentary evidence confirming its ownership, including: (1) the original Issued Document of Title, continuously in its possession; (2) the Land Office's confirmation of its registered proprietorship; (3) the directors' resolutions bearing genuine signatures of DW3W1 and DW3W2; and (4) consistent police reports and complaints lodged contemporaneously upon discovery of the impugned transactions.

This body of evidence, according to Kechara World, establishes that its title was never divested and remains indefeasible under section 340 of the National Land Code 1965, save in circumstances of proven fraud to which it was not a party. Legal Effect: Void Instruments and Indefeasibility of Title

Given the above contentions, Kechara World submitted that (1) the alleged Sale and Purchase Agreement and all consequential instruments are void ab initio; (2) no legal or equitable interest in the land ever passed to Pong Soon Lean; and (3) Kechara World's registered title remains conclusive, subject only to statutory exceptions not made out on the facts. Suit 84-Affirmation of Ownership

In Suit 84, Kechara World affirmed its claim as registered proprietor of the land by contending that the evidence demonstrates continuous possession and custody of the original title, absence of any valid dealing divesting ownership and confirmation by Land Office witnesses of its title integrity.

Accordingly, Kechara World submitted that its ownership is conclusive and indefeasible, and any competing claim by Pong Soon Lean must fail. Counterclaim Against Pong Soon Lean

Kechara World further counterclaimed against Pong Soon Lean (and the relevant parties) on the basis that (1) Pong Soon Lean had entered onto the land and purported to deal with it without lawful authority; (2) false documents were relied upon in an attempt to register or assert ownership; and (3) Kechara World was forced to incur expense, time, and disruption in defending its proprietary rights.

Hence, Kechara World submitted that the conduct of Pong Soon Lean amounts to an unlawful interference with property rights, warranting relief including damages.

In sum, Kechara World submitted that the evidence, taken as a whole, establishes beyond doubt that first, there was no valid sale transaction ever existed between the parties; second, the alleged documents relied upon by Pong Soon Lean were forged or otherwise fraudulent; third, Kechara World remains the lawful registered proprietor of the land with indefeasible title; and fourth, Pong Soon Lean's claims are entirely unproven and must be dismissed with appropriate consequential orders.

The principal case law authorities relied by Kechara World include Tan Ying Hong v Tan Sian San & Ors [2010] 1 MLRA 1; [2010] 2 CLJ 269; [2010] 1 AMR 557; [2010] 2 MLJ 1 and Sia Hiong Tee & Ors v Chong Su Kong & Ors [2015] 8 CLJ 1173; [2015] 4 AMR 31; [2015] 3 MLRA 652; [2015] 4 MLJ 188. The Case for Ramlah Begum

Ramlah Begum, the First Defendant in Suit 437, is an advocate and solicitor who acted in the purported conveyancing transaction relied upon by Pong Soon Lean.

Ramlah Begum resisted the claims against her and maintained that all acts undertaken by Messrs. Ramlah & Associates were carried out strictly in her capacity as solicitors acting for the Plaintiff/Buyer, Pong Soon Lean, in relation to the proposed acquisition of the subject property.

Her central position is that: (1) she acted at all material times in good faith and believed the Sale and Purchase Agreement and supporting documents to be valid; (2) she had acted on written instructions of Pong Soon Lean; (3) she acted without any retainer or contractual relationship with Kechara World; and (4) she acted in accordance with standard conveyancing practice.

Ramlah Begum underscored her submission that all payments made and documents processed were undertaken strictly on instructions of Pong Soon Lean or her authorised representative, and with Pong Soon Lean's knowledge and consent.

Accordingly, she denied any negligence, breach of duty, fraud, or wrongdoing.

In support of the above contentions, she relied on cases such as OCBC Bank (M) Bhd v Lee Lee Fah & Ors and Another Appeal [2000] 1 MLJ 134; [1999] 1 MLRA 668; [2000] 1 CLJ 71; [1999] 4 AMR 4476 and In the matter of Yee Teck Fah v Lee Chee Ment & Anor [2020] MLJU 1745; [2021] 1 MLRH 278; [2020] CLJU 1402; [2020] AMEJ 1400. The Case for the Pengarah Tanah dan Galian Selangor and the Pendaftar Hakmilik, Pejabat Tanah dan Galian Selangor

As the Fourth and Fifth Defendants in Suit 438 (and the Second and Third Defendant in Suit 84), the Pengarah Tanah dan Galian Selangor and the Pendaftar Hakmilik, Pejabat Tanah dan Galian Selangor resisted the Plaintiffs' claim and maintained that they acted strictly within their statutory and administrative functions under the National Land Code.

The Fourth and Fifth Defendants submitted that they had complied with their statutory duties in that the impugned instruments were presented in a form which was facially complete and compliant with registration requirements. They argued that upon presentation, the instruments were verified against the existing land register and were found to be consistent with the registered particulars. Accordingly, the instruments were accepted as "fit for registration" in accordance with the statutory framework.

The Fourth and Fifth Defendants emphasized that the Registrar's duty is limited to ensuring facial compliance and consistency with registry records, and does not extend to investigating the authenticity of underlying transactions or signatures.

Reliance was placed on authorities including Pendaftar Hak Milik, Pejabat Pendaftaran Wilayah Persekutuan Kuala Lumpur & Anor v Poh Yang Hong [2016] 9 CLJ 297; [2016] 6 AMR 595; [2016] 6 MLJ 413; [2016] 6 MLRA 257 and Pejabat Tanah Dan Galian Negeri Selangor v Bank Pertanian Malaysia Bhd [2016] 3 CLJ 851; [2016] 3 MLRA 296; [2016] MLJU 15; [2016] AMEJ 1021 which recognise that the land administrator's role is administrative in nature and does not impose a duty to investigate beyond the instruments presented.

The Fourth and Fifth Defendants further submitted that there was no duty to verify the authenticity of the security paper or to investigate allegations of forgery beyond what is apparent on the face of the instruments and that there was no system requirement mandating verification of security paper serial numbers. Since actions taken were in good faith and in accordance with statutory procedure and upon discovery of irregularities, appropriate corrective steps were taken, including cancellation of the registration to preserve the integrity of the register, no negligence or breach of statutory duty arises against them.

The Fourth and Fifth Defendants also argued that Plaintiffs' alleged loss cannot be causatively linked to any act or omission of the Registrar. This is because the release of purchase monies was effected independently by the Plaintiffs and/or their solicitors and such payments were made prior to completion and registration of title. It was pointed out that any disbursement to third parties was undertaken by the Plaintiffs' solicitors without reliance on the status of registration and as such there is no causal nexus between the act of registration and the alleged loss. Reliance was placed on Chua Seng Sam Realty Sdn Bhd v Say Chong Sdn Bhd & Ors and Other Appeals [2013] 2 MLJ 29; [2012] 6 MLRH 122; [2012] 7 CLJ 377 for the principle that causation is a mandatory element in negligence. The Position of the Second Defendant, Raghunathan

It is noted for completeness that the Second Defendant, Raghunathan, alleged by Pong Soon Lean to be an intermediary or agent, did not enter appearance and was not called as a witness in these proceedings. Analysis and Decision

Having carefully considered the pleadings, the oral and documentary evidence adduced at trial, the demeanour and credibility of the witnesses, the contemporaneous documents, the authorities relied upon by the parties, as well as the governing legal principles applicable to the issues arising in these consolidated proceedings, this Court now turns to determine the central disputes between the parties.

As outlined earlier, the competing claims before this Court arise from fundamentally inconsistent assertions of ownership and entitlement to the said land. On the one hand, Pong Soon Lean contended that she lawfully acquired title pursuant to a valid sale and purchase transaction and subsequent registration in her favour. On the other hand, Kechara World maintained that no valid transaction ever existed, that the impugned instruments were tainted by fraud and forgery, and that its registered title was never lawfully divested.

In addressing these disputes, this Court shall first consider the competing proprietary claims between Pong Soon Lean and Kechara World, including the validity of the alleged Sale and Purchase Agreement, the issue of authority and agency, the authenticity of the impugned documents, and the legal effect of the impugned registration under the National Land Code.

This Court shall thereafter consider Kechara World's counterclaim, including whether the conduct complained of gives rise to any entitlement to damages or other consequential relief.

Finally, should it become necessary to do so, this Court will address Pong Soon Lean's alternative claims against the remaining Defendants, namely Ramlah Begum and Raghunathan, arising from their alleged involvement in the impugned transaction. The Competing Claims Between Pong Soon Lean and Kechara World

In determining the central dispute between Pong Soon Lean and Kechara World, this Court is required to examine a series of interrelated factual and legal questions arising from the impugned transaction and the subsequent land dealings. These include, among others, whether a valid and enforceable Sale and Purchase Agreement dated 10 November 2020 ever existed; whether Raghunathan possessed any authority, whether actual, apparent, or otherwise, to act on behalf of Kechara World; whether the impugned transaction documents and title-related instruments relied upon by Pong Soon Lean were genuine and lawfully procured; whether Pong Soon Lean acquired any valid or indefeasible interest in the said land; and ultimately, whether the registration and issuance of the Issue Document of Title in Pong Soon Lean's favour, assuming such registration had occurred, was liable to be set aside under section 340 of the National Land Code.

Having considered the totality of the evidence before this Court, this Court finds that Kechara World's position is to be preferred and ought substantially to succeed in respect of the competing proprietary claims over the said land.

A significant feature of the present case is that the evidence adduced by the Fourth and Fifth Defendants in Suit 437, namely the land authorities themselves, materially supports Kechara World's position rather than that advanced by Pong Soon Lean.

Although the Pengarah Tanah dan Galian Selangor and the Pendaftar Hak Milik do not assert any proprietary interest in the said land, the evidence tendered through their witnesses assumes considerable importance because it concerns the integrity of the land registration process, the authenticity of the title documentation, and the administrative records maintained by the Land Office in respect of the impugned dealings.

In substance, the evidence of the land authorities establishes several material matters.

First, the official land records identify Kechara World as the registered proprietor of the said land. The original Issue Document of Title corresponding to such registration remained in Kechara World's possession and was verified by the relevant land office witnesses as authentic.

Secondly, the evidence of the land authorities revealed that certain title-related documents relied upon in the impugned transaction bore serial numbers traceable to missing or stolen security papers originating from the Land Office system. Evidence was also adduced that such security papers had previously been reported missing and were susceptible to misuse in fraudulent land transactions.

Thirdly, the investigations and internal checks undertaken by the land authorities disclosed irregularities in the documentation and supporting instruments relied upon in relation to the purported transfer and related dealings affecting the said land.

Most significantly, the relevant administrative and registry records do not support the existence of any lawful or properly completed transfer of ownership from Kechara World to Pong Soon Lean.

In the judgment of this Court, the evidence of the land authorities is particularly compelling because it emanates from independent public officers who have no proprietary stake in the outcome of the dispute. Their evidence was largely documentary, internally consistent, and materially corroborative of Kechara World's case that the impugned documents and purported transfer process were tainted by serious irregularities.

Equally significant is the fact that the land authorities did not support Pong Soon Lean's assertion that a valid and effective transfer had been lawfully completed in her favour. On the contrary, the tenor of the evidence points toward administrative anomalies and documentary irregularities inconsistent with a genuine and properly authorised conveyance.

This Court further accepts the evidence of DW3W1 and DW3W2, namely the directors of Kechara World, who unequivocally denied executing the impugned Sale and Purchase Agreement or authorising any disposal of the said land to Pong Soon Lean. Their evidence was not materially shaken during cross-examination.

This Court also attaches considerable weight to the expert evidence of DW3W4, whose analysis materially supports the contention that the questioned signatures appearing on the impugned documents could not be reliably attributed to the directors of Kechara World.

Furthermore, the alleged role of Raghunathan as agent or representative of Kechara World remains wholly unsubstantiated. No board resolution, written authorisation, corporate mandate, or contemporaneous communication evidencing such authority was produced before this Court. More critically, Raghunathan himself was neither called as a witness nor subjected to cross-examination.

In the absence of credible evidence establishing actual or ostensible authority, this Court is unable to conclude that Raghunathan possessed authority to bind Kechara World in any purported transaction concerning the said land.

While this Court does not disregard the evidence that payments were made by Pong Soon Lean in relation to the purported transaction, proof of payment alone cannot validate a transaction otherwise infected by forged documentation, absence of authority, and serious irregularities affecting the transfer instruments and title documentation.

The Torrens system embodied in the National Land Code is fundamentally premised upon the integrity and reliability of the register and the authenticity of instruments presented for registration. Where the underlying instruments are tainted by forgery, fraud, or fundamental invalidity, the resulting registration cannot confer indefeasible title within the meaning and protection contemplated under section 340 of the National Land Code.

Having regard to the totality of the evidence, this Court finds that Pong Soon Lean has failed to establish, on a balance of probabilities, that there existed a valid and enforceable sale transaction lawfully entered into with Kechara World, or that any lawful authority existed for the impugned transfer and registration process relied upon by her.

On the contrary, this Court finds that the contemporaneous evidence, the testimony of the land authorities, the expert evidence, and the documentary irregularities identified throughout the course of the trial overwhelmingly support Kechara World's contention that the impugned transaction and title-related documents were not genuine and were tainted by illegality and/or fraud.

Accordingly, this Court finds that Kechara World remains the lawful and registered proprietor entitled to the protection accorded under section 340 of the National Land Code. Kechara World's Counterclaim

Having found in favour of Kechara World in respect of the competing proprietary claims, this Court now turns to consider Kechara World's counterclaim. The issues arising for determination include whether Pong Soon Lean unlawfully interfered with Kechara World's proprietary rights in the said land, and whether Kechara World has established a basis in law and in fact for the reliefs sought, including damages.

In the Court's judgment, the counterclaim against Pong Soon Lean cannot be sustained. Notwithstanding the findings made in favour of Kechara World on title, it does not automatically follow that the conduct of Pong Soon Lean amounts to actionable wrongdoing giving rise to a separate cause of action in tort or otherwise. The Court is not satisfied that Kechara World has established, on a balance of probabilities, the requisite elements of unlawful interference, causation, or compensable loss attributable to Pong Soon Lean.

First, much of the conduct relied upon by Kechara World in support of its counterclaim is intrinsically bound up with the same factual matrix underpinning Pong Soon Lean's claim to title. In that context, Pong Soon Lean's actions in pursuing registration and asserting proprietary rights were undertaken in the bona fide assertion of an interest which, although ultimately unsuccessful, was not shown to be malicious, dishonest, or actuated by bad faith.

Secondly, this Court finds that Kechara World has not demonstrated any independent actionable damage flowing directly from any specific wrongful act attributable to Pong Soon Lean. The losses complained of, to the extent proven, are in substance the consequence of the disputed transaction itself and the attendant administrative investigations, rather than any distinct tortious conduct on the part of Pong Soon Lean.

Thirdly, in light of this Court's findings that the impugned transaction arose in circumstances involving forged or unauthorised instruments, the evidential foundation for attributing primary wrongdoing to Pong Soon Lean is significantly weakened. In such circumstances, it would be neither fair nor legally sustainable to extend liability in damages against a party who, on the evidence, appears to have been operating under a mistaken belief as to her entitlement.

Accordingly, the counterclaim against Pong Soon Lean is dismissed. Pong Soon Lean's Alternative Claims Against Ramlah Begum and Raghunathan

This Court now turns to consider Pong Soon Lean's alternative claims against the First Defendant, Ramlah Begum, and the Second Defendant, Raghunathan in Suit 437. The issues arising for determination are whether Ramlah Begum breached the duties owed by her in her capacity as solicitor in the conduct of the impugned transaction; whether Raghunathan made representations amounting to misrepresentation and/or fraudulent inducement in relation to the same; and whether Pong Soon Lean has established an entitlement to the alternative monetary reliefs sought against them.

Having considered the totality of the evidence, this Court finds that Pong Soon Lean's alternative claims against both Ramlah Begum and Raghunathan are made out to the requisite standard. In respect of Raghunathan, the evidence, though largely circumstantial, consistently points to his central role as the intermediary who represented himself as being connected to or authorised by Kechara World, thereby facilitating the negotiations and inducing reliance on his representations in the progression of the transaction. In the absence of any rebuttal evidence from him, and in light of the contemporaneous documentary trail, the Court is satisfied that liability in misrepresentation is established.

As for Ramlah Begum, the evidence demonstrates that she proceeded with the conveyancing transaction and effected critical steps towards completion without undertaking sufficient verification of authority and authenticity of the transaction in circumstances where, applying the standard expected of a reasonably competent conveyancing solicitor, further checks were clearly warranted. Her omissions materially contributed to the completion of the impugned transaction and the resulting loss suffered by Pong Soon Lean. Accordingly, liability is established against both Defendants. Pong Soon Lean's Alternative Claims Against the Fourth and Fifth Defendants (Land Authorities)

This Court next addresses Pong Soon Lean's alternative claims against the Fourth and Fifth Defendants, namely the Director of Lands and Mines Selangor and the Registrar of Titles, Pejabat Tanah dan Galian Selangor. It is alleged that these Defendants were negligent and/or in breach of statutory duty in the registration and processing of the impugned instruments, thereby contributing to the loss suffered.

In this Court's judgment, these claims cannot be sustained. The evidence adduced, particularly through the witnesses from the land office, confirms that the Fourth and Fifth Defendants acted strictly within their statutory and administrative functions under the National Land Code. Their duty is confined to examining instruments presented for registration on their face and ensuring conformity with registry requirements, and does not extend to investigating the underlying validity of private transactions or the authenticity of supporting signatures beyond apparent irregularities.

This Court accepts that, on the face of the instruments presented at the material time, the documents were in registrable form and were not shown to contain defects which would have justified refusal of registration under the statutory framework. There is no evidence of bad faith, wilful default, or failure to act in accordance with prescribed procedures on the part of the Fourth and Fifth Defendants.

Furthermore, this Court finds that the alleged loss complained of by Pong Soon Lean is not causatively attributable to any act or omission of the Fourth and Fifth Defendants. The disbursement of purchase monies and the progression of the transaction were undertaken independently by Pong Soon Lean and her solicitors prior to the final resolution of the authenticity of the underlying instruments. The causal link between the administrative acts of registration and the alleged loss is therefore too remote to sustain liability in negligence.

Accordingly, the alternative claims against the Fourth and Fifth Defendants are dismissed in their entirety.

In the result, while this Court finds that Kechara World remains the lawful registered proprietor of the said land, the evidence nevertheless establishes that Pong Soon Lean suffered loss arising from the impugned transaction through the conduct and involvement of other parties. The appropriate reliefs and consequential orders therefore follow accordingly. The Orders

In light of the findings above, the reliefs sought by Pong Soon Lean against Kechara World in Suit 437, including the declaratory and proprietary reliefs premised upon the alleged Sale and Purchase Agreement and the purported transfer of title, are hereby dismissed.

However, Pong Soon Lean's alternative claims against Ramlah Begum and Raghunathan, as reflected in paragraphs 67(k) and 67(s) of the Amended Statement of Claim, are allowed, with damages to be assessed.

Pong Soon Lean's claims against the Pengarah Tanah dan Galian Selangor and the Pendaftar Hak Milik, Pejabat Tanah dan Galian Selangor are dismissed.

The principal declaratory and consequential reliefs sought by Kechara World in Suit 84 are allowed. However, Kechara World's counterclaim in Suit 437 is dismissed.

The Second Plaintiff's private caveat bearing Registration No. 12568/2020 shall remain valid until further order.

Prayers (a), (b), (c), (d), (e) and (f) for the Fourth and Fifth Defendants' counterclaim in Suit 437 is allowed. Costs

Although Kechara World has succeeded in resisting Pong Soon Lean's competing proprietary claim, this Court does not find that Pong Soon Lean acted with culpable misconduct. Further, Kechara World's counterclaim against Pong Soon Lean has been dismissed. In the circumstances, and taking into account the overall justice of the case, this Court is firmly of the view that no order as to costs ought to be made as between Pong Soon Lean and Kechara World.

However, Ramlah Begum and Raghunathan are ordered to pay costs of RM80,000.00 each to Pong Soon Lean.

In respect of the claims against the Pengarah Tanah dan Galian Selangor and the Pendaftar Hak Milik, Pejabat Tanah dan Galian Selangor, this Court having dismissed the claims against them in their entirety, nevertheless makes no order as to costs. 7 July 2026 (CHOONG YEOW CHOY) JUDGE HIGH COURT OF MALAYA SHAH ALAM, SELANGOR Counsels: Plaintiffs Paramjothy Paharan (P.Paramjothy & Co (Advocates & Solicitors)) 1st Defendant : Kevin Kiran Dass (Kevin Kiran Ng & Associates) $ 2^{\mathrm{nd}} $ & $ 3^{\mathrm{rd}} $ Defendants Amira Haziqah Binti Zulkifli (Kamar Penasihat Undang-Undang Negeri Selangor)