Content
DALAM MAHKAMAH RAYUAN MALAYSIA 5 (BIDANG KUASA RAYUAN) RAYUAN SIVIL NO. B-01(NCVC)(A)-87-02/2019 DAN RAYUAN SIVIL NO.B-01(NCVC)(A)-91-02/2019
Loading…
/akn/my/judgment/court-of-appeal/2020/5e16ebc4-6ad8-4251-bb77-d1f1ddbf7c00
Court of Appeal of Malaysia4 Feb 2020B-01(NCVC)(A)-87-02/2019 & B-01(NCVC)(A)-91-02/2019
The written judgment as the court issued it, with the coram, case number, and source links. Every paragraph has its own anchor.
Citations and treatment detected automatically from later judgments and the authorities this decision relies on.
Later cases and laws citing this decision
Not yet cited by a later decision.
Earlier cases and laws this decision relies on
“earch which was issued by the First Respondent and Court’s order in 25 Originating Summons No: BA-24-1371-12/2016 ("OS 1371") which stated that Masri Bin Khatib was the administrator in Form H of the Land Acquisition Act 1960 is false and inaccurate. 5 [4] In OS 439, the Appellants prayed for orders including 5 declara”
“n submission of the First Respondent. [34] This error was thereafter corrected by the First Respondent where the necessary amendment was made pursuant to and in 20 consistent with Section 380 of the National Land Code to correct the original capacity of Masri Bin Khatib as an Administrator to Lot 864 (see Exhibit “NZ-6”
“Hakmilik & Kepentingan di bawah Seksyen 340 (1) Kanun Tanah Negara (KTN) 1965; Dan Dalam Perkara Artikel 13 Perlembagaan Persekutuan; 45 Dan Dalam Perkara Seksyen 41 & Seksyen 42 Akta Relif Spesifik (Specific Relief Act): Dan 3 Dalam Perkara Aturan 7 & Aturan 28 Kaedah- 5 Kaedah Mahkamah 2012; Dan Dalam Perkara Aturan”
“e contrary to all decided authorities to try disputed issues of fact on an originating summons - see Foong Seong v Chan San Choon [1947] MLJ 85; In Re Powers (1885) 30 Ch D 15 291 296; Dowse v Gordon [1891] AC 202 ... " [43] In view of the various dispute of facts and contemporaneous documents from parties herein, a Wr”
“10 "This is purely a question of fact and, in my opinion, it would be contrary to all decided authorities to try disputed issues of fact on an originating summons - see Foong Seong v Chan San Choon [1947] MLJ 85; In Re Powers (1885) 30 Ch D 15 291 296; Dowse v Gordon [1891] AC 202 ... " [43] In view of the various disp”
Auto-detected from judgment text; not a substitute for a citator check.
Content
DALAM MAHKAMAH RAYUAN MALAYSIA 5 (BIDANG KUASA RAYUAN) RAYUAN SIVIL NO. B-01(NCVC)(A)-87-02/2019 DAN RAYUAN SIVIL NO.B-01(NCVC)(A)-91-02/2019
1
NAZARUDDIN BIN MOHD SHARIFF @ MASARI (NO. K/P: 560429-10-5039) (selaku Pentadbir Harta Pusaka arwah Masri Bin Khatib) 15
2
ROZIDIN BIN MASARI (No. K/P: 591017-10-5069) (selaku Pentadbir Harta Pusaka arwah Masri Bin Khatib) … PERAYU-PERAYU 20
1
PEJABAT TANAH & DAERAH HULU LANGAT 25
2
MOHD FOWZI BIN ABDUL HAMID (NO. K/P: 581112-10-6925) (atas Kapasiti individu & selaku Pentadbir Bersama harta Pusaka Kamin Bin Khatib) 30
3
ROSLAN BIN MAULUD (NO. K/P: 500618-10-5439) (atas Kapasiti individu & selaku Pentadbir Bersama harta Pusaka Kamin Bin Khatib) 35 … RESPONDEN-RESPONDEN [Dalam Mahkamah Tinggi Malaya Di Shah Alam Dalam Negeri Selangor Darul Ehsan, Malaysia Saman Pemula NO: BA-24NCVC-439-04/2018 40 Dalam Perkara Harta Pusaka arwah Masri Bin Khatib; Dan Dalam Perkara Perintah Mahkamah Tinggi 45 Shah Alam bertarikh 25.04.2017 melalui prosiding BA-24NCVC-1371-12/2016; Dan 2 Dalam Perkara Perintah Mahkamah Tinggi 5 Shah Alam bertarikh 17.-5.2017 melalui prosiding BA-24NCVC-916-09/2016; Dan Dalam Perkara Borang H bertarikh 08.09.2015 tersebut; 10 Dan Dalam Perkara Borang K bertarikh 03.04.2016 tersebut; Dan Dalam Perkara Geran Pentadbiran bertarikh 15 11,11,1957; Dan Dalam Perkara Warta Kerajaan Negeri Selangor Darul Ehsan bertarikh 07.11.2013; Dan 20 Dalam Perkara Carian Rasmi Hartanah Lot 864, GM 2242, Mukim Hulu Langkat Daerah Hulu Langat, Negeri Selangor Darul Ehsan bertarikh 07.02.2013; Dan 25 Dalam Perkara Carian Rasmi Hartanah Lot 864, GM 2242, Mukim Hulu Langat Daerah Hulu Langat, Negeri Selangor Darul Ehsan bertarikh 29.05.2012; Dan 30 Dalam Perkara Geran Mukim Hartanah Lot 864, GM 2242, Mukim Hulu Langat Daerah Hulu Langat, Negeri Selangor Darul Ehsan bertarikh 16.04.2015; Dan 35 Dalam Perkara Pembetulan Kesilapan dalam Dokumen Hakmilik, dll di bawah Seksyen 380 Kanun Tanah Negara (KTN) 1965; Dan Dalam Perkara Ketidakbolehan Disangkal 40 Hakmilik & Kepentingan di bawah Seksyen 340 (1) Kanun Tanah Negara (KTN) 1965; Dan Dalam Perkara Artikel 13 Perlembagaan Persekutuan; 45 Dan Dalam Perkara Seksyen 41 & Seksyen 42 Akta Relif Spesifik (Specific Relief Act): Dan 3 Dalam Perkara Aturan 7 & Aturan 28 Kaedah- 5 Kaedah Mahkamah 2012; Dan Dalam Perkara Aturan 92 Kaedah 4 Kaedah-Kaedah Mahkamah 2012 (KKM 2012). 10
1
NAZARUDDIN BIN MOHD SHARIFF @ MASARI (NO. K/P: 560429-10-5039) 15 (selaku Pentadbir Harta Pusaka arwah Masri Bin Khatib)
2
ROZIDIN BIN MASARI (No. K/P: 591017-10-5069) (selaku Pentadbir Harta Pusaka arwah Masri Bin Khatib) 20 … PLAINTIF-PLAINTIF DAN 25
2
MOHD FOWZI BIN ABDUL HAMID (NO. K/P: 581112-10-6925) (atas Kapasiti individu & selaku 30 Pentadbir Bersama harta Pusaka Kamin Bin Khatib)
3
ROSLAN BIN MAULUD (NO. K/P: 500618-10-5439) (atas Kapasiti individu & selaku 35 Pentadbir Bersama harta Pusaka Kamin Bin Khatib) … DEFENDAN-DEFENDAN] CORAM 40 HAMID SULTAN ABU BACKER, JCA HANIPAH FARIKULLAH, JCA KAMALUDIN MD SAID, JCA 45 4 GROUNDS OF JUDGMENT 5 Introduction [1] There were two appeals fixed before this Court. Both appeals were filed by the Appellants and they are as follows - 10 i) Civil Appeal No: B-01 (NCvC) (A)- 87-02/2019 (Appeal 87); and ii) Civil Appeal No: B-01 (NCvC) (A)- 91-02/2019 (Appeal 91) 15 [2] Appeals 87 and 91 are the Appellants’ appeal against the dismissal of the Appellants’ main suits i.e. Originating Summons No: BA-24 NCvC-305-03/2018 ("OS 305") and Originating Summons No: BA-24 NCvC-439-04/2018 ("OS 439") against the First Respondent, Pejabat Tanah & Daerah Hulu Langat ("PTD") 20 by the learned judge on 28.1.2019. [3] In OS 305, the Appellants applied for orders, among others, a declaration that the Government Gazette and official search which was issued by the First Respondent and Court’s order in 25 Originating Summons No: BA-24-1371-12/2016 ("OS 1371") which stated that Masri Bin Khatib was the administrator in Form H of the Land Acquisition Act 1960 is false and inaccurate. 5 [4] In OS 439, the Appellants prayed for orders including 5 declaration that Masri Bin Khatib is the owner of the land, amendment made by the First Respondent on the document title of the land is null, void and ultra vires. [5] By way of an Order dated 7.1.2019, the High Court had allowed 10 the Second and Third Respondents to intervene as Second and Third Defendants in the OS 439. [6] At the High Court, the learned judge had acknowledged that both OS 305 and OS 439 were filed for the same purpose 15 related to the land acquisition and award which has to be deposited to the Court through Court’s order in Originating Summons No. BA-24-64-01/2016 (“OS 64”). Therefore, both OS 305 and OS 439 were heard together. The extracts from the grounds of judgment are as follow:- 20 "[3] Oleh kerana kedua-dua Saman Pemula tersebut melibatkan perkara pokok yang sama, iaitu tuntutan wang pampasan pengambilan tanah yang disimpan di mahkamah, maka kedua-duanya boleh didengar dan 25 diputuskan serentak. [9] SP305 dan SP439 difailkan di atas perkara dan tujuan yang sama. Kedua-duanya berhubung dengan pemilikan 6 tanah tersebut dan wang pampasan yang didepositkan 5 ke dalam akaun mahkamah melalui SP64." [7] There is a single grounds of judgment for both OS 305 and OS 439 which is at pages 13 to 27 of Rekod Rayuan Bahagian A & B (Jilid 1). 10 [8] The trial at the High Court was by way of affidavits evidence. The Appellants’ Affidavit in Support of OS 439 was affirmed by Nazaruddin Bin Mohd Shariff @ Masari on 16.4.2018 and the Affidavit in Reply by the Second and Third Respondents was 15 affirmed by Mohd Fowzi Bin Abdul Hamid on 17.1.2019. [9] Having analysed the affidavits evidence before the Court and heard submissions from the Appellants and the Respondents during the trial, the learned judge dismissed the Appellants’ OS 20 305 and OS 439 with Costs of RM5,000.00 to be paid to the First Respondent and RM2,500.00 to be paid to the Second and Third Respondents subject to allocatur fee. The Appeal 25 [10] Both Appeal 87 and Appeal 91 came before us. We had read the records of appeal. The Appellants have set out various grounds in their memorandum of appeal dated 22.4.2019. The Appellants and the Respondents had made their oral submissions and also 30 7 relying on their written submissions. We had considered their able 5 submissions. [11] Perusing the grounds stated in the memorandum of appeal, in our view, the Appellants complaint is that the learned judge failed to appreciate the evidence before him that shows Masri Bin Khatib 10 (MBK) is the registered owner of Lot 864. This is consistent with the Appellants’ claim at the High Court in OS 439 among others for a declaration that Masri Bin Khatib is the registered owner of Lot 864 and an order to amend the Title of Lot 864 within 7 days to reflect the capacity of ownership of 15 Masri Bin Khatib as the registered owner of Lot 864 in 1/1 share. [12] The learned judge in his grounds of judgment had stated as follows - 20 “Melalui SP439 pula, pihak plaintif memohon perintah untuk mendapatkan deklarasi berikut:
1
MBK adalah pemilik tanah tersebut;
2
Catatan status MBK sebagai ‘Pentadbir’ adalah salah, tidak berasas, curang dan bertentangan dengan undang-undang; 30 8
3
Catatan status MBK yang sahih dan tepat tanah 5 tersebut adalah sebagai Pemilik Berdaftar 1/1 Bahagian;
4
Tindakan defendan pertama menukar status pemilikan MBK daripada pemilik kepada pentadbir 10 tanah tersebut adalah curang, salah, tidak berasas, bertentangan dengan undang-undang, bertentang-an dengan keadilan sejagat serta ultra vires; batal dan tidak sah; dan 15 5. Tindakan defendan pertama melakukan pindaan atau pembetulan ke atas dokumen hak milik tanah tersebut adalah curang, salah, tidak berasas, bertentangan dengan undang-undang, bertentang-an dengan keadilan sejagat serta ultra vires, batal 20 dan tidak sah”. [13] The learned judge went on to acknowledge that the issue is related to the order of court in OS 1371 (the order is Exhibit “NZ- 24” at pages 647-649 of Rekod Rayuan Bahagian C (Jilid 4). He 25 found that part of the order which says that MBK was the registered owner of the whole portion of the land was wrongly entered because the respective judge Datuk Azimah Bte Omar never made such an order, therefore, the Appellants cannot state something in the order which they had never applied for. The 30 9 facts were distorted. The learned judge also stated that the Court 5 by letter dated 12.4.2018 (see exhibit marked “MF-5” at page 1394 of Rekod Rayuan Bahagian C (Jilid 7) had informed the Appellants’ solicitor about the mistake and that the Order could not be enforced. The Appellants’ solicitor was required to file a new Order. Extracts from the Shah Alam High Court letter dated 10 12.4.2018 is produced in verbatim as follows:- "2. Mahkamah melalui klarifikasi yang diadakan pada 10.4.2018 dengan kehadiran Tuan Mohd Abdul Hakim bin Mohd Ali dari Kamar Penasihat Undang-Undang dan 15 peguamcara Plaitnif tidak hadir, telah menjelaskan bahawa Perintah bertarikh 25.4.2017 bagi tindakan ini yang telah dimeteraikan oleh Mahkamah pada 7.6.2017 [Lampiran 12] telah terkhilaf diluluskan dan TIDAK LAGI BOLEH DIGUNAPAKAI kerana tidak menggambarkan 20 relief sebenar yang telah dibenarkan.
3
Ini adalah kerana, relief Pertama yang dinyatakan di dalam Lampiran 12, iaitu bahawa ''Arwah Masri Bin Khatib adalah Pemilik Berdaftar 1/1 Bahagian atas 25 Hartanah No. Hakmilk: GM 2242, Lot 864 Sungai Sub Mukim Hulu Langat Daerah Hulu Langat Selangor Darul Ehsan (Hartanah tersebut) tidak pernah diberikan oleh YA Datuk Azimah Binti Omar sewaktu memberikan keputusan pada 25.4.2017. 30 10
4
Mahkamah telah sebelum ini memaklumkan kepada 5 peguamcara Plaintif iaitu En. Ismail Bin Yahya untuk memfailkan Deraf perintah yang baru namun sehingga ke hari ini tiada tindakan susulan diambil.
5
Berikutan ini, Pihak Mahkamah dengan ini memberikan 10 tempoh 7 hari dari tarikh surat ini untuk peguamcara Plaintif memfailkan satu Deraf Perintah yang baru bagi mencerminkan Perintah sebenar yang diberikan pada 24.4.2017 yang mana kegagalan peguamcara Plaintif untuk berbuat demikian pihak Defendan melalui A. 42 k. 15 10
Subsection
(4) Kaedah-kaedah Mahkamah 2012 bolih mengambil tindakan susulan untuk memfailkan Deraf Perintah tersebut.” [14] Further, the learned judge found that the Appellants’ solicitor had 20 used OS 1371 Order to support their claim in OS 305. In other words, if the above instructions were followed or later acknowledged by the Appellants’ solicitor after filing OS 305 on 21.3.2018, the declaration sought to declare MBK as the registered owner of Lot 864 would not arise. In effect the OS 305 25 is supported by the incorrect Order which is yet to be corrected as directed by the Court. [15] The learned judge also found that in OS 439, though it never directly mentioned about the said OS 1371 Order, but the fact 30 11 remains that the declaration sought is the same i.e for declaration 5 that MBK is the registered owner of Lot 864. In other words, had the Appellants’ solicitor followed or appreciated the Court’s letter dated 12.4.2018 (Exhibit “MF-5”), the declaration sought is also non-starter or the issue of res judicata as grounded by the Appellants does not arise because when OS 439 was filed on 10 19.4.2018 the Appellants would have knowledge or known that the OS 1371 Order contains mistake that must be corrected. [16] We investigated this matter and found the learned judge did not make a wrong finding over this matter. 15 [17] Firstly, paragraph 1 of the said OS 1371 Order says - “1. Arwah Masri Bin Khatib adalah Pemilik Berdaftar 1/1 Bahagian atas Hartanah No. Hak Milik, GM 2242, Lot 20 Sungai Sub, Mukim Hulu Langat, Daerah Hulu Langat, Selangor Darul Ehsan (hartanah tersebut.)” [18] Secondly, in OS 1371 (Exhibit “MF-5” at pages 1293-1298 of Rekod Rayuan Bahagian C (Jilid 7), the declarations sought are 25 as follows:- “1. Satu deklarasi bahawa dapatan “pertikaian” yang dibuat JKPTG di dalam prosiding Sama Pemula No: 24-64- 01/2016 iaitu permohonan JKPTG untuk mendepositkan 30 12 wang pampasan milik arwah Masri Bin Khatib ke dalam 5 akauan Mahkamah Tinggi Shah Alam selaras dengan butiran Borang H bertarikh 8.9.2015, adalah salah, tidak sah, tidak berasas dan merupakan suatu skandal;
2
Suatu deklarasi bahawa dapatan “pertikaian” yang 10 dibuat JKPTG di dalam prosiding Sama Pemula No: 24- 64-01/2016 iaitu permohonan JKPTG untuk mendepositkan wang pampasan milik arwah Masri Bin Khatib ke dalam akaun Mahkamah Tinggi Shah Alam selaras dengan butiran Borang H bertarikh 8.9.2015, 15 diketepikan dan/atau dikeluarkan daripada rekod Mahkamah;
3
Suatu deklarasi bahawa sebenarnya tidak ada langsung “pertikaian” yang wujud, bertentangan dengan dakwaan 20 atau dapatan JKPTG di dalam permohonan Saman Pemula No: 24-64-01/2016 tersebut;
4
Suatu deklarasi bahawa bukti muklamad dan/atau konklusif bagi menunjukkan wujudnya pertikaian seperti 25 yang didakwa JKPTG tersebut adalah dengan kewujudan dan/atau pemfailan Borang N di bawah Seksyen 37 (1) (c) atau (d) & Seksyen 38 yang dibaca dengan Seksyen 39 Akta Pengambilan Tanah 1960; 30 13
5
Kos permohonan ini dijadikan kos di dalam kausa; dan 5
6
Sebarang Relif atau Perintah yang Mahkamah Yang Mulia ini fikirkan perlu dan suaimanfaat untuk diberikan.” [19] The declarations sought by the Appellants in OS 1371 above are 10 mainly to declare the disputes (“pertikaian”) brought by the KPTG the First Respondent in OS 64 to deposit the land compensation/award belonged to Masri Bin Khatib in Shah Alam High Court as null and void and of no effect and ought to be set aside. 15 [20] We agreed that there is no declaration sought to declare Masri Bin Khatib as Pemilik Berdaftar 1/1 Bahagian atas Hartanah No. Hak Milik, GM 2242, Lot Sungai Sub, Mukim Hulu Langat, Daerah Hulu Langat, Selangor Darul Ehsan (hartanah tersebut). 20 Therefore, the insertion of this order in paragraph 1 of OS 1371 Order is obviously incorrect. [21] The finding of the learned judge is reproduced below as follows- 25 “10. Pihak plaintif mendakwa bahawa isu mengenai pemilikan tanah telah selesai dengan adanya perintah mahkamah yang diberikan melalui SP 1371. Semakan ke atas rekod mahkamah menunjukkan adanya 30 penyelewengan fakta yang telah dilakukan peguam 14 plaintif semasa memfailkan draf perintah dan juga 5 perintah bersih bagi SP 1371.
11
Ternyatalah, draf perintah SP 1371 tidak pernah dihantar kepada defendan pertama dan hanya difailkan menurut Aturan 42 kaedah 8(1) Kaedah-kaedah 10 Mahkamah 2012 (KKM 2012). Setelah perintah bersih diperolehi dan diserahkan, defendan pertama memohon klarifikasi dan mahkamah telah menetapkan tarikh pada 10.4.2018 untuk klarifikasi. Malangnya, peguam plaintif tidak hadir semasa klarifikasi diadakan walaupun telah 15 dimaklumkan tarikh oleh mahkamah. Peguam Persekutuan (PP) mewakili defendan pertama hadir pada tarikh klarifikasi dan telah memaklumkan kepada mahkamah tentang penyelewengan yang ada pada draf perintah dan perintah bersih SP 1371 yang diperolehi 20 plaintif.
12
Ternyatalah, makluman PP tersebut ada asas. Perenggan pertama perintah SP 1371 telah memasukkan satu perintah yang menyatakan MBK 25 adalah pemilik berdaftar semua Bahagian tanah tersebut. Ironinya, perintah tersebut tidak pernah dipohon plaintif di dalam SP 1371 dan Hakim berkenaan tidak pada bila-bila masa pernah memberikan perintah tersebut. Sudah tentulah, plaintif tidak boleh 30 15 memasukkan suatu perintah yang dipohon di dalam 5 tuntutannya atau yang tidak diberikan oleh mahkamah.
13
Kemudiannya, mahkamah melalui satu surat Penolong Kanan Pendaftar bertarikh 12.4.2018 (lihat Lampiran 15 SP 1371) telahpun memaklumkan kepada peguam 10 plaintif akan kesilapan tersebut dan memaklumkan bahawa perintah SP 1371 tidak boleh lagi diguna pakai. Mahkamah turut mengarahkan peguam plaintif iaitu Encik Ismail bin Yahya supaya memfailkan satu perintah baru. Namun begitu, ianya tidak diendahkan. Bahkan, 15 peguam yang sama telah menggunakan perintah mahkamah yang terdapat penyelewengan fakta tersebut bagi menyokong permohonan SP 305.
14
Bagi permohonan SP 439 pula, walau pun pihak plaintif 20 tidak secara langsung merujuk kepada perintah SP 1371, nampaknya perintah-perintah yang dipohon pada asasnya adalah sama, iaitu meminta mahkamah mengisytiharkan MBK sebagai pemilik tanah tersebut. Inferens yang dapat dibuat adalah, peguam plaintif tahu 25 perintah 1371 tidak diperolehi secara jujur dan oleh sebab itulah, perlunya kepada perintah baru melalui SP 439 bagi mengisyitiharkan MBK sebagai pemilik tanah tersebut”. 16 [22] Based on the above facts, it was rightly said that the incorrect 5 Order could not be enforced or used to support the Appellants’ applications in another proceedings. It was correctly submitted by the First Respondent that the Appellants did not come to Court with clean hands. The case of Continental Court Sdn Bhd v Fan Fong Hee & Ors [2013] 1 LNS 275 was referred to 10 which held that: “95. The court was also satisfied that the plaintiff did not come to court with clean hands. 15
96
It is trite law that he who seeks equity must come with clean hands. In Wong Chun Wah v. Kok Kam Chee (P) [2008] 3 CLJ 510; [2008] 3 MLJ 176, the Court of Appeal observed as follows at page 181 paragraphs [21] to [23]:- 20 "In this regard, two maxims of equity stand out significantly. These maxims are:
Subsection
(1) he who seeks equity must do equity; and 25
Subsection
(2) he who comes to equity must come with clean hands. Applying the first maxim, the plaintiff who is now seeking the equitable relief of enforcing the trust must do equity which, in popular parlance, 30 17 means being right and fair to the defendant (see 5 eg, Snell's Equity, Thomson Sweet & Maxwell 2004, p. 96). The second maxim is related to the ex turpi causa non oritur actio of the common law. It is very similar to the first 10 maxim, except that the second maxim looks to the past rather than the future. The plaintiff, as the claimant, not only must be prepared now to do what is right and fair, but also must show that his past record in the transaction is clean; for 'he who has committed 15 iniquity... shall not have equity': Jones v. Lenthal [1669] 1 Ch Cas 154 and Snell's Equity. In Eastern Properties Sdn Bhd v. Hampstead Corporation Sdn Bhd [2007] 6 CLJ 538 (CA), Gopal Sri 20 Ram JCA, speaking for the Court of Appeal, in para 14 at p 547 explained the applicability of equitable maxims with unrivalled clarity as follows: It is beyond argument that equitable doctrines are not 25 to be dealt with in a rigid fashion. They are by their very nature flexible and meant to be applied in such a fashion as produces a just result on the facts and circumstances of a given case. But there are certain basic threads that have been woven into the fabric of 30 18 equitable doctrines through the pronouncements in the 5 leading cases on the subject. One of these is that a supplicant who prays in aid equitable assistance must himself or herself be not guilty of equitable misconduct. This is sometimes put in the form of the maxim: He who comes to equity must come with clean hands. So a 10 contract breaker cannot successfully invoke the remedy of specific performance." [23] Be that as it may, the learned judge had dealt and considered the Appellants’ OS 305 and 439. In trying to obtain the declarations 15 sought that Masri Bin Khatib is the Owner of the Lot 864, the Appellants established their case by relying on the documents as follows - i. Grant dated 11.11.1957; 20 ii. Geran Mukim dated 9.5.2012 ; iii. Carian Rasmi dated. 7.2.2013 ; 25 iv Warta Kerajaan Negeri Selangor dated 7.11.2013 ; v. Judgment dated 18.5.2017 by YA Dato' Azimah Binti Omar; and 30 vi. Order dated 25.4.2017. 19 [24] Before going further into this matter, the facts of the case can be 5 seen as follows - i. The subject matter of this dispute is a plot of land known as GM 6017 (formerly known as GM 2242), Lot No. 864, Mukim Hulu Langat, District Hulu Langat in the State of 10 Selangor ("Lot 864" ). ii. It is an undisputed fact that originally Lot 864 was registered under Sultan Palembang @ Khatib Besar Bin Raja Acheh @ Khatib Besar bin Raja Acheh (hereinafter 15 referred to as Sultan Palembang). iii. At all material times and upon the death of Sultan Palembang in or around 1942, Sultan Palembang had left behind two biological sons, Kamin Bin Khatib and 20 Masri Bin Khatib. iv. Kamin Bin Khatib died in the year 1948 and Masri Bin Khatib died on 23.3.1988. 25 v. The disputed subject matter Lot 864 had never been passed down intervivos and/or bequeathed by will to either of the Sultan Palembang's sons. 20 vi. Therefore upon the demise of Sultan Palembang, Kamin 5 Bin Khatib and Masri Bin Khatib are joint beneficiaries in equal shares (1/2) to the Estate of Sultan Palembang. vii. At all material times upon the death of Sultan of Palembang, Masri Bin Khatib was registered as the 10 Administrator to Lot 864. viii. Both the Appellants are the Joint Administrators of the estate of Masri Bin Khatib. 15 ix. The Second and Third Respondents are the grandsons of Kamin Bin Khatib and are also the Joint Administrators and the beneficiaries of the Estate of Kamin Bin Khatib. 20 [25] Based on the above facts, it is an undisputed that the two biological sons, Kamin Bin Khatib and Masri Bin Khatib are joint beneficiaries in equal shares (1/2) to the Estate of Sultan Palembang upon the demise of Sultan Palembang. This prompted us to inquire from the Appellants whether there is any 25 Faraid Certificate granted in respect of the property since at the material times Masri Bin Khatib was and still is the Administrator of Lot 864. 21 [26] This Court took judicial notice that if the deceased was a Muslim, 5 the rightful beneficiaries as stated under faraid are the father, mother, wife, husband, sons, daughters, etc. In Arabic, the Islamic law of succession is known as 'al-faraid', which literally means fixed portions. Technically, the term denotes the quantum of shares allotted to the legal heirs as determined by the Shariah. 10 [27] The definition of Faraid is the determination of the rights and the heirs' portion of a deceased's inheritance is based on the provisions of the Sharia Laws. The Faraid Certificate is an official declaration containing the description regarding the valuation of 15 the deceased’s inheritance and the entitled heirs who are Muslim as well as their entitled parts of the inheritance after the faraid calculations are verified and issued by the Court by the powers bestowed by the law. After the death of the deceased, immediate actions should be taken to manage the deceased’s inheritance. 20 Procrastination will cause the claims and distribution of the estate to be further delayed, thereby impacting the deceased’s heirs, especially children (if any) who need the inheritance to continue their daily sustenance. The best approach that should be taken before making an official application via the provisions of the law 25 is to apply for the Faraid Certificate, the deceased’s heirs must first fulfil certain obligations according to the Islamic law and execute them in sequence. These obligations include the burial management cost, settlement of debt, division of Husband-Wife Common Property, completion of will, and finally the distribution 30 22 of estate to the entitled heirs. Matters such as pawning, sales 5 claims, right restrictions of land interests and others must be solved before the distribution of estate is initiated. The Faraid Certificate can minimize the negative complications surrounding the distribution of estate from fraud or hiding from the entitled heirs, manipulation between heirs and their relatives as the 10 Certificate contains details of the heirs and the parts to be received which are valid by law. (See: My GOV, Managing Family Institution-https://www.malaysia.gov.my/portal/content/27709) [28] The Appellants’ counsel informed us that there is no Faraid 15 Certificate in this case, however insisted that Masri Bin Khatib is the owner of the said land based on the contemporaneous documents established by them in Rekod Rayuan Bahagian C (Jilid 7) which shows Masri Bin Khatib is the the registered owner of Lot 864. 20 [29] The Respondents’s case is that Masri Bin Khatib was never an owner of the said land but was the Administrator of the said land. [30] The learned judge at paragraph 15 of judgement had considered 25 the records presented before him which show as follows - i. A copy of EMR 4984 dated 11.11.1957 shows that Masri Bin Khatib was registered as Administrator to the whole 23 portion of the said land which before that owned by 5 Sultan Palembang @ Haji Ismail Bin Raja Acheh; ii. The status of Masri Bin Khatib as Administrator also shown from the Letter of Administration dated 11.11.1957; 10 iii. During data migration process in the Hulu Langat Land Office from the old manual system of EMR to the computerise system (SPTB) in 2013 had resulted in Masri Bin Khatib's status in the Title to be amended from 15 Owner to administrator; iv. During the land acquisition inquiry, it was discovered that there is dispute on ownership of the said land between two different families from Sultan Palembang generation 20 claiming interest over the said land. The First Respondent decided to deposit the land acquisition award into Court until the dispute is resolved. [31] Based of the above facts, the learned judge at paragraph 16 of 25 his judgment found that there is in fact a dispute over the said land which must be firstly resolved. Any party who claim interest and ownership must file an action for the Court to resolve the dispute over the said land. Further, the learned judge was of the view that the Appellants by taking a short cut by filing OS 305 and 30 24 OS 439 will not resolve the ownership dispute over the said land. 5 It is also within the learned judge’s knowledge from the record that the Second and Third Respondents had filed a Writ of Summons No: BA-22 NCvC-327-07/2018 (Suit 327) for the Court to determine the issue of ownership of the said land and an order to set aside OS 1371 Order on ground that it was obtain by fraud, 10 wrong and misconceived. [32] Based on the reasons stated above, the learned judge made his finding that the issue of ownership of the said land is still a live issue which must be finally determined by the Court. The learned 15 judge agreed that the decision taken by the First Respondent to deposit the land acquisition award into Court via OS 64 is correct. The application is supported by the Affidavit in Support affirmed by Penolong Pentadbir Tanah Daerah Hulu Langat, Jurita Binti Juhari on 19.7.2016 (see Exhibit “NZ-13” at pages 290-293 of 20 Rekod Rayuan Bahagian C (Jilid 2)). The Appellants’ OS 305 and OS 439 was held to be without basis for the Court to consider and dismissed the Appellants’ OS 305 and OS 439. [33] Perusal of the above documents we confirmed that there is a 25 Grant of Letters of Administration dated 11.11.1957 granted under Section 184 of the Probate and Administration Enactments (Cap 8) at the material time to Masri Bin Khatib as the Administrator of the estates of the deceased Sultan Palembang (see Exhibit “MF-2” at 1214-1217). We believed that the status of 30 25 Masri Bin Khatib Administrator cannot be suddenly changed to be 5 owner without any explanation. The explanation as stated by the learned judge is that during data migration process in the Hulu Langat Land Office from the old manual system of EMR to the computerise system (SPTB) in 2013 had resulted in Masri Bin Khatib's status in the Title to be amended from owner to 10 administrator. This was admitted by the First Respondent/Hulu Langat Land Office that it was during the migration of the manual system to the 'Sistem Pendaftaran Tanah Berkomputer' that the name Masri Bin Khatib was wrongly keyed into the computer data system as the owner to Lot 864 hence the change of capacity 15 from administrator to owner. See also the written submission of the First Respondent. [34] This error was thereafter corrected by the First Respondent where the necessary amendment was made pursuant to and in 20 consistent with Section 380 of the National Land Code to correct the original capacity of Masri Bin Khatib as an Administrator to Lot 864 (see Exhibit “NZ-6 at page 213 of the Rekod Rayuan
Part
Bahagian C (Jilid 2).
Content
25 [35] The Federal Court case of Hasan Bin Seman & Ors v Jusoh Bin Awang Chik [1982] 1 MLJ 66 at Pages 67 held that :- "In the National Land Code indefeasibility and correction of error are two independent provisions existing side by side. 30 26 Each has its own sphere and scope of operation. The 5 provision for correction of error is not even treated by the Code as an exception to indefeasibility provision. Thus correction of an error can never be a violation of the indefeasibility principle and must remain outside the scope of the indefeasibility principle." 10 [36] Even if this is not the case, we did enquire from the Appellants as alluded to earlier whether there is Faraid Certificate granted to Masri Bin Khatib as the sole heir and beneficiary to the estate of Sultan Palembang. There is no such evidence before us. Whether 15 Masri Bin Khatib is the only lawful heir to Sultan Palembang is to be determined by the Syariah Court. As such, it would be inappropriate for this court to issue any such declaratory order. Without the Faraid Certificate which we insisted, Grant of Letters of Administration dated 11.11.1957 validly shows that Masri Bin 20 Khatib is the Administrator of the property of his deceased father Sultan Palembang Bin Raja Acheh @ Haji Ismail Bin Raja Acheh who died in 1942 as stated in the said Letters of Administration and not the owner of the property. 25 [37] In Latifah Mat Zin v. Rosmawati Sharibun & Anor [2007] 1 CLJ Sya 1; [2007] 5 MLJ 119, at paragraph 56, it was said amongst others that when the letter of administration is obtained, the administrator is appointed, and in case of an estate of a muslim, the administrator will obtain a 'Sijil Faraid ' from the Shariah Court 30 27 which state who are the beneficiaries and their respective shares, 5 in accordance with Islamic Law. If the estate consists of immovable property, another application is made to the civil High Court for a vesting order. All that the civil High Court does in such an application is that, being satisfied with all procedural requirements, the civil High Court makes a vesting order in 10 accordance with the Sijil Faraid. [38] It is reiterated that the Faraid Certificate can minimize the negative complications surrounding the distribution of estate from fraud or hiding from the entitled heirs, manipulation between heirs 15 and their relatives as the Certificate contains details of the heirs and the parts to be received which are valid by law. [39] Based on the reasons stated above, the learned judge made his finding that the issue of ownership of the said land is still a live 20 issue which must be finally determined by the Court. It is also within the learned judge’s knowledge from the record that the Second and Third Respondents had filed Suit 327 (see Exhibit “MF-3” at pages 1222- 1282 of Rekod Rayuan Bahagian C (jilid 7) for the Court to determine the issue of ownership of the said land 25 and an order to set aside OS 1371 Order on ground that it was obtain by fraud, wrong and misconceived. 30 28 [40] In fact, this Court in an appeal by an Order dated 17.10.2018 had 5 allowed the Second Respondent’s appeal in Civil Appeal No: B-02
305
We were satisfied that there is no appealable error in the 25 judgement for this Court to interfere. The Appellants' appeal is bereft of any merit. 30 30 5 Decision [45] It is our unanimous decision that the Appellants’ appeal is dismissed with Costs of RM 5,000.00 for each set of solicitors subject to allocatur. 10 Dated this 4th February, 2020 Sgd KAMALUDIN MD. SAID 15 JUDGE COURT OF APPEAL MALAYSIA PUTRAJAYA Parties 20
1
Afifi Ahmad, Ismail Yahya and Mohd Fakhzan Mohd Noor for the Appellants (Messrs Fakhzan Azlina & Associates) 25
2
Siti Fatimah Talib for the Respondent 1 (Legal Advisor Office, District and Land Officer Of Hulu Langat)
3
Dato’ Manpal Singh Sachdev, Ph Cheah and Nor Afifah 30 for the Responden 2 & 3 (Messrs Manjit Singh Sachdev, Mohammad Radzi & Pts)
a
(A)-1164-06/2017 to set aside the decison of the High Court Shah Alam dated 18.5.2017 in the Appellants’s Originating Summons No: BA-24-916-09/2016 (OS 916). The Court also ordered that the caveat entered by the Second Respondent dated 2.3.2016 in 10 the said land be maintained until the dispute is determined by the High Court in Shah Alam Suit 327. Therefore, we agreed with the Respondents that the Appellants' reliance on OS 916 is deceitful and a blatant attempt to mislead the Court as the Appellants' solicitors are well aware that in the Court of Appeal had set aside 15 that Judgment in OS 916 on 17.10.2018 (Exhibit “MF-4” at pages 1286-1289 of Rekod Rayuan Bahagian C (Jilid 7). [41] We found that the learned judge’s finding is correct. Based on the above reasons, we also believed that there are serious dispute of 20 facts and conflicting contemporaneous documents from both the Appellants and the Second and Third Respondents pertaining to the ownership of Lot 864 that requires to be ventilated in a full trial. As such this issue should not be decided on the basis of affidavit evidence alone and an originating summons is not the 25 proper mode to dispose this issue as seen in the case of Foon Seong v Chan San Choon (F) [1947] 1 MLJ 85 [Tab 2 of RBOA, Page 86] where the learned Bostock-Hill J held that :- "Moreover the question at issue is a question of fact and not 30 29 of law and will have to be determined in Open Court and is 5 not suitable for determination by the procedure of an Originating Summons." [42] In the case of Ong Yok Chu & Anor v.Yong Teck Fong & Anor [1960]1 MLJ 292, at pg. 293], Ismail Khan J held that: 10 "This is purely a question of fact and, in my opinion, it would be contrary to all decided authorities to try disputed issues of fact on an originating summons - see Foong Seong v Chan San Choon [1947] MLJ 85; In Re Powers (1885) 30 Ch D 15 291 296; Dowse v Gordon [1891] AC 202 ... " [43] In view of the various dispute of facts and contemporaneous documents from parties herein, a Writ action that the Second and Third Respondents had filed vide Suit 327 is the most appropriate 20 and proper mode of proceeding to determine the issue of ownership in Lot 864. [44] The learned judge had correctly dismissed both OS 439 and OS
Wrong text, a broken link, out-of-date content, or a removal request — tell us and we'll check it against the official source.