Asmah Binti Mahful v Hassan Bin Yusof (BA-22NCvC-509-12/2023)

This is a dispute between family members over a piece of property. P specific performance to compel the 1st After a full trial, I allow P s claim. Here are the grounds of my judgment. Background facts

P, D1 and one Safiee - siblings (same mother, different fathers). Safiee passed away on 14.9.2013.

The subject - matter property is located at Rumah Murah Kg. Tasek Tambahan, Mukim Empang, District of Hulu Langat, Selangor property . The property father , who was a land settler (peneroka). The father owned a 19/01/2026 09:00:00 BA-22NCvC-509-12/2023 Kand. 66 S/N GOZrmxBkkmiJkzkbrXJYQ piece of land through settlement (penerokaan), which was later exchanged with the property by the government.

After the father property. However, P, D1 and the other siblings occupied the property whenever the need arose.

It so happened that in or around the year 1977, when the government did a census (bancian), D1 was occupying the property. D1 provided his identification card and was registered as the registered proprietor.

In the year 1984, D1 moved to Rasah Jaya, Seremban. Thereafter, P stayed at the property until the year 2019 (for about 35 years).

P D1 RM 2,000 as part - payment of the deposit.

On 29.10.2021, P lodged a private caveat on the property to prevent D1 from selling the property to the third party.

On 4.2.2022, P received a notice for the removal of the caveat (Form C) dated 3.2.2022. Present proceedings

P filed this action by way of an originating summons dated 28.7.2022. The principal relief prayed for is : S/N GOZrmxBkkmiJkzkbrXJYQ satu dekri pelaksanaan spesifik untuk Hassan bin Yusof mengambil langkah-langkah sewajar nya untuk membolehkan pendaftaran

By an order dated 23.7.2023, the previous judge ordered the originating summons to be converted into a writ action. sole witness was D1 i.e. DW1. Issues to be tried

some of which are overlapping. 1) Sama ada tandatangan Defendan di perjanjian jual beli bertarikh 4.6.2013 yang di masukki di antara Plaintif dan Defendan Pertama telah diperolehi secara misrepresentasi? 2) Sama ada tandatangan Defendan di perjanjian jual beli bertarikh 4.6.2013 yang di masukki di antara Plaintif dan Defendan Pertama telah diperolehi secara frod? 3) Sama ada tandatangan Defendan di Borang Permohonan Kebenaran Pindah Milik Kos Rendah (RKR) ada lah bukan tandatangan Defendan dan telah di peroleh secara frod? 4) Sama ada Plaintif telah melakukan pembayaran deposit bagi perjanjian Jual Beli tersebut kepada Defendan dan / atau wakil dan / atau ejen Defendan? 5) Sama ada terdapat bukti pembayaran deposit 10 % oleh Plaintif terhadap Defendan? S/N GOZrmxBkkmiJkzkbrXJYQ 6) Sama ada perjanjian jual beli bertarikh 4.6.2013 yang di masukki di antara Plaintif dan Defendan Pertama ada lah sah dan berkuatkuasa? 7) Sama ada Peguam Encik Mohd Aris Bin Abu Bakar merupakan se orang saksi ketika Plaintif menurunkan tandatangan seperti yang tertera di Perjanjian Jual Beli? 8) Sama ada Plaintif pernah memohon borang permohonan kebenaran pindahmilik rumah kos rendah (RKR)? 9) Sama ada Defendan melakukan pelanggaran Perjanjian Jual Beli sekira nya Mahkamah mendapati Perjanjian tersebut ada lah sah (Di mana ada lah di nafikan)?

Whether D1 can be absolved from his contractual obligations under SPA because he purportedly did not know what he was signing?

(ii) Whether D1 transfer documents was obtained by fraud or misrepresentation?

(iii) Whether P breached the terms of the SPA by failing to pay the 10 % deposit (amounting to RM 4,000) upon execution of the SPA?

(iv) If issue (iii) above is answered in the affirmative, whether the SPA was void as a result of such a breach?

Whether the SPA can be specifically enforced against D1? First issue : Whether the 1st Defendant can be absolved from his contractual obligations under the SPA because he purportedly did not know what he was signing? S/N GOZrmxBkkmiJkzkbrXJYQ . D1 signed the documents thinking that they In essence, D1 pleads non est factum. Apa kah pendirian puan berkenaan kenyataan Hassan bahawa tandatangan beliau ke atas Perjanjian Jual Beli telah di perolehi secara fraud dan misrepresentasi? Kenyataan tersebut ada lah tidak benar. Semasa menandatangani SPA dan borang pindahmilik, Hassan mempunyai pengetahuan penuh bahawa dokumen yang di tandatangani nya adalah SPA dan borang pindahmilik. Penjualan Hartanah tersebut kepada saya telah lama di bincang oleh kami se keluarga. Oleh yang demikian, langsung tidak timbul isu berkenaan fraud atau misrepresentasi. Permintaan Hassan untuk saya membayar RM 2,000.00 juga ada lah bukti bahawa Hassan mempunyai pengetahuan penuh mengenai dokumen yang di tandatangani Saya cadangkan juga pada puan, bahawa semasa tandatangan ini di turunkan oleh Encik Hassan. Encik Hassan tidak sedar atau tidak tahu bahawa ini dokumen melibatkan perjanjian jual beli rumah? S/N GOZrmxBkkmiJkzkbrXJYQ P had been living on the property since the year 1985. Second issue : Whether the 1st Defendant transfer documents was obtained by fraud or misrepresentation? transfer documents was obtained by fraud or misrepresentation. To wit, D1 was purportedly told by P , and not for the transfer of the property.

ew about the sale and purchase of the property after D1 died. As such, he did not have any personal knowledge about the facts surrounding the signing of the transfer documents in the year 2013. D1 signed the transfer documents willingly and with knowledge of the contents of the transfer documents. Saya di sediakan oleh Tetuan Aris & Co kepada Hassan. Saya maklumkan pada tersebut lalu telah menandatangani nya bersama borang pindahmilik (Rujuk m/s 219 - Saya cadangkan juga pada puan, bahawa semasa tandatangan ini di turunkan oleh Encik Hassan. Encik Hassan tidak sedar atau tidak tahu bahawa ini dokumen melibatkan perjanjian jual beli rumah? This suggest that D1 did not want to proceed with the transfer of the S/N GOZrmxBkkmiJkzkbrXJYQ property because he had found a new buyer at a higher price. And not because of fraud or misrepresentation. Third issue : Whether the Plaintiff breached the terms of the SPA by failing to pay the 10 % deposit (amounting to RM 4,000) upon execution of the SPA? 2,000.00 sebagai sebahagian bayaran deposit semasa Hassan menandatangani SPA tersebut. Sekitar bulan Jun 2018, saya membuat bayaran sebanyak RM 6,000.00 kepada Halimah binti Harja (isteri Syafie). RM 2,000.00 daripada RM6,000.00 tersebut adalah bayaran baki deposit untuk pembelian Hartanah tersebut. Bayaran selebih nya adalah untuk bayaran-bayaran lain. Bayaran deposit kepada Halimah ada lah atas permintaan dan persetujuan Hassan dan ini ada S/N GOZrmxBkkmiJkzkbrXJYQ Boleh puan rujuk ke penyata saksi puan yang sebentar tadi dokumen lagi satu tu. Soalan nombor 8. Di dalam jawapan soalan nombor 8 tu Betul. Ini ada lah kenyataan puan betul ya? Betul. Dan 2,000 ni duit apa ya? Tak tahu dia minta 2,000 dulu daripada 4,000 tu. Kira duit deposit ya puan? Ya. Kira nya puan nak kata dekat sini puan dah bayar 2,000 dulu dekat Encik Hassan? Ya. Sekitar ini di dalam jawapan yang sama juga puan di muka surat yang sama juga puan ada mengatakan sekitar bulan Jun 2018 saya membuat bayaran sebanyak RM 6,000 kepada Halimah binti Harja isteri syafie. RM 2,000 daripada RM 6,000 tersebut ada lah bayaran baki deposit untuk pembelian hartanah tersebut bayaran selebih nya adalah untuk bayaran-bayaran yang lain. Puan mengatakan puan ada bayar baki deposit RM 6,000 kepada Halimah binti Harja ya puan? Baik puan boleh sambung terangkan. Dalam 28.5.2013 saya ada mengeluarkan duit saya bagi RM 2,000 dulu kepada Hassan semasa di menandatangani perjanjian tersebut. Lepas itu yang RM 6,000 itu saya bayar kemudian kepada puan Halimah sebab rumah tu kira bagi dua tu saya anggap bagi duit tu delay Halimah separuh sebab suami dia pun tengah sakit lumpuh so saya bagi duit dekat situ RM 6,000. Itu lah sebab nya deposit itu tak sama. RM 2,000 dan R receive the 10 % deposit payment of RM 4,000.00 from P. However, D1 did not adduce any S/N GOZrmxBkkmiJkzkbrXJYQ evidence to support his contention that the deposit was not paid by P. Jadi kita rujuk soalan dan jawapan nombor 7 jawapan Encik Ikmal dekat muka surat 3 penyata saksi belah atas sekali Encik Ikmal ada nyata kan di situ soalan dia ada lah saya pendek kan soalan dia Encik pernah lihat sebarang dokumen secara bertulis berkenaan bayaran deposit penjualan hartanah tersebut yang di bayar oleh plaintiff pada defendan pertama. Encik Ikmal kata setahu saya tiada. Tapi saya cadangkan Encik Ikmal tak tahu seperti yang Encik Ikmal katakan tadi? Setahu saya tiada. Tiada apa? Tiada kewujudan bukti bertulis atau apa-apa bayaran yang dibuat. Tapi Encik Ikmal tak tahu sama ada bayaran ini dibuat atau tidak? Memang setahu saya memang tak ada. Betul tapi Encik Ikmal tahu ke tidak ada bayaran ni di buat? Yang saya faham Encik Ikmal tak pernah nampak sebarang bukti? Betul. Tapi saya tanya Encik Ikmal soalan saya Encik Ikmal tahu tak tentang sebarang bayaran deposit? Ada di claim oleh pihak Asmah tapi saya tak nampak apa-Soalan saya Encik Ikmal tahu tak ke tak tahu? Testimony on construction and interpretation of contracts Then sila baca 3.1.1? A sum of Ringgit Malaysia Four Thousand only hereinafter referred to as the deposit shall be paid by the purchaser to the vendor upon the execution of this agreement. S/N GOZrmxBkkmiJkzkbrXJYQ Okay dia ada mengatakan di situ ya puan shall be paid by the purchaser to the vendor upon the execution of this agreement maksud nya deposit rumah ni perlu di bayar oleh puan sejurus setelah penjanjian ini di Dan bukan nya kepada Halimah binti Harja ni seperti yang puan katakan di dalam jawapan ni betul? Setuju atau tak setuju? Berdasarkan perjanjian ini ia telah mengatakan secara jelas bahawa duit deposit rumah perlu di bayarkan pada penjual kepada Encik Hassan benar ya puan dan di dalam klausa ini tidak ada mengatakan perlu dibayar kepada Halimah binti Harja ni puan ya? Jadi saya cadangkan kepada puan bahawa puan sebenar nya telah melanggar perjanjian jual beli ni puan ya kerana tidak membayar sebarang deposit pada Encik Hassan benar ya puan? Dan saya cadangkan pada puan memandangkan puan telah setuju sebentar tadi bahawa puan telah melanggar klausa 3 perjanjian jual beli ini puan maka perjanjian jual beli ni telah terbatal puan antara puan dan juga Encik Hassan. Setuju? Puan faham soalan saya? Memandangkan puan tidak membayar deposit kepada Encik Hassan to be irrelevant. Ultimately, the construction and interpretation of a contract is a question of law for determination by the court. And not by witnesses through their oral evidence. (See the Court of Appeal decision in NVJ Menon v The Great Eastern Life Assurance Co Ltd [2004] 3 MLJ 38 at 44 - 45). Why did the Plaintiff pay the balance deposit to ? S/N GOZrmxBkkmiJkzkbrXJYQ Baik jadi peguamcara defendan pertama ada tanya pada puan kata sebenar nya duit deposit perlu bayar kepada Hassan dan bukan pada Puan Halimah. Boleh kenapa puan terangkan kenapa bayar separuh daripada bayaran deposit itu di bayar pada Halimah? Separuh pada Halimah sebab perjanjian rumah tu di bagi dua kalau 40,000 seorang RM 20,000 so saya bayar deposit dulu dekat Hassan tapi RM 6,000 tu dekat Halimah lebih sikit sebab masa itu suami dia sakit lumpuh perlukan perubatan, perlukan kewangan untuk suami dia. Itu saya bagi dia RM 6,000 walau pun sebenar nya deposit tu RM 4,000. Hassan RM 2,000 sahaja sebab dia minta RM 2,000 dahulu. Hassan dan Halimah separuh-separuh? Ya. Itu perjanjian kita anak beranak memang satu family pakat macam itu rumah tu kos nya RM 40,000 se orang RM 20,000. Mengapa separuh-separuh? Sebab owner dia pun 2. Owner apa tu? Sebelum ni pun rumah ni pun di miliki oleh Syafie dan Halimah lah isteri dia. So bila dah beli sale and purchase perjanjian nama Hassan so Hassan saja yang menandatangani perjanjian sale and purchase and (b) RM 2,000 to at a later date. Variation It is hereby expressly agreed and declared by the parties that notwithstanding any of the provisions hereof the terms of this Agreement may at any time and from time to time be varied or amended by mutual consent of the parties hereto by means of mutual exchange of letters or such other means as the parties may agree upon from time to time and thereupon such amendment and variation shall be deemed to become effective and the relevant provisions of this Agreement shall be deemed to have been amended or varied accordingly and shall be read and construed S/N GOZrmxBkkmiJkzkbrXJYQ as if such amendments and variations have been incorporated in and

It is my finding that P has discharged her burden of proving that the deposit was paid in accordance with the mutually consented variation of the terms to the SPA. Fourth issue : If issue (iii) above is answered in the affirmative, whether the SPA was void as a result of such a breach?

Even if I were to find that P had contravened the SPA by failing to pay the deposit in accordance with clause 3.1.1 thereof, this would not automatically render the SPA void. Instead, the SPA becomes voidable at the hands of D1. However, D1 did not terminate the SPA.

The doctrine of election applies here. D1 has a right to elect to either:-

terminate the SPA; or (b) to ignore the breach by treating the SPA as still continuing and subsisting.

In Tan Kok Siang v Kemuning Setia Sdn Bhd [2018] 6 MLJ 652, the Court of Appeal explained the doctrine of election as follows : This was also discussed by the Court of Appeal in Leong Weng Choon v Consolidated Leasing (M) Sdn Bhd [1998] 3 MLJ 860 : In other words, the plaintiff could either accept the repudiation by terminating the agreement or he could ignore the breach by treating the contract as alive and subsisting. As a matter of fact as well as on the pleadings, the plaintiff did not terminate the contract despite the repudiation by the first defendant so that the contract is still subsisting. [21] Where the innocent party elects to affirm the contract, the contract is treated as still continuing with the rights and obligations of S/N GOZrmxBkkmiJkzkbrXJYQ both parties still intact and, each party has a right to sue the other for damages - see Visu Sinnadurai on the Law of Contract (4th Ed, Lexis Nexis), pp 938 - 940. However, where the election is to terminate, rescind or end the contract by reason of the breach, the innocent party is itself released from further performance of the contract.

Between 4.6.2013 (the date of the SPA) and 3.2.2022 (the date of the notice of removal of P D1 did not take any steps to indicate that he intended to terminate the contract. No police reports were made by D1 alleging that his signature on the transfer documents were obtained by fraud or misrepresentation. D1 only began taking steps in the year 2022, after P discovered that he had found another buyer.

Having regard to the circumstances of this case, i.e. (a) D1 undisputed signature on the transfer documents and (b) the absence of any steps taken by D1 to indicate an intention to terminate the SPA, it can be inferred that D1 had impliedly elected to affirm the SPA.

D1 as a result of the breach of clause 3.1.1 thereof is an afterthought. Which D1 is now relying on in order to avoid his obligations under the SPA and to be able to sell the property to a third party.

I took into account the following assertions made by P in her witness statement, which were unchallenged in cross - examination :

The property belonged to Safiee. D1 was registered as the owner merely because he happened to be living at the property when the authorities were conducting a census;

P lived at the property from 1984 to 2019. During that period of 35 years, P paid for the monthly intalments, quit rent, assessment and other utility bills;

P even paid the purchase price of the property to Lembaga Perumahan Dan Hartanah Selangor in order to remove the r caveat;

It was generally known by all family members that the property is to be sold to P, as she had stayed at the property for 35 years; and

It was D1 who breached the SPA (particularly clause 5 thereof) when he refused to take steps to make a police report so that P solicitors could apply for a new title.

I conclude that even if P had breached the terms of the SPA regarding payment of the deposit (which is not the case), the SPA is not void and remains enforceable. Fifth issue : Whether the SPA can be specifically enforced against the 1st Defendant?

P is seeking a decree of specific performance against D1. Namely for P to purchase the property based on the terms of the SPA.

It is my finding that the SPA should be specifically enforced for the following reasons :

The transfer documents were signed by D1;

D1 is not established;

There is no evidence of any fraud or misrepresentation as alleged by D1;

There was no termination of the SPA by D1; and

P has fulfilled her obligations under the SPA.

I refer to the High Court case of Kiong Man v Kishen [1971] 1 MLJ

The facts there are similar to the facts in the present case. To wit,

The plaintiff claimed for specific performance for the sale of land based on an agreement entered into with the defendant.

The defendant admitted having signed the document dated 1.7.1960. But avers that:- (i) he did so in the belief that he was signing an agreement for a lease of a portion of his land; (ii) he did not know what he was signing; and (iii) he did not sign an agreement or any document other than an agreement for a lease.

The defendant further alleged that the agreement was obtained from him by fraud on the part of the plaintiff, where the plaintiff explained the contents to him referring to a lease.

Taking into consideration all the facts and surrounding circumstances from the evidence adduced by the defendant, the court was of the view that the defendant had failed to discharge the burden of proving non est factum by strong and clear evidence according to the accepted principle of law. Submissions by the 1st Defendant

For completeness, I will address the various arguments raised by D1 in written submissions. Whether the 1st application form for approval of low - cost property transfer is not the 1st signature and was obtained fraudulently

Firstly, D1 submits that there was an act of forgery committed by P in the course of the SPA. signature on the application form for approval of low - cost property transfer. D1 further submits that the action of P renders the SPA void, as such action demonstrates that P engaged in fraud and forgery.

In short, D1 contends that his signature on the application form for approval of low - cost property transfer is not his signature and was obtained fraudulently. Nevertheless, the authenticity of D1 signature on the said application form is irrelevant to this case.

The only documents that are relevant to show that there is a binding contract between P and D1 are the transfer documents. Namely, the SPA and the memorandum of transfer (Form 14A). D1 admits that he signed the transfer documents.

In any event, s submission is misleading. The report dated 3.5.2023 obtained by D1 concluded that the chemist was not able to form an opinion on the authorship of the questioned signature. The report does not prove that P committed forgery. The chemist was not even called to testify. Whether Mr. Mohd Aris bin Abu Bakar, the solicitor, was present as a witness when the 1st Defendant affixed his signature as stated in the SPA

Secondly, D1 submits that on the day in question when the transfer documents were signed, only P was present and observing when D1 affixed his signature. The signature was not made in the presence of Messrs Aris & Co, as stated in the transfer documents. In other words, D1 says that Mr. Mohd Aris bin Abu Bakar, the solicitor concerned, was not present as a witness when D1 affixed his signature as stated in the SPA

This, according to D1, contravenes section 211 (1) of the National Land Code, which provides for attestation of instruments of dealing. Section 211 (1) of the National Land Code requires that the signature of D1 must be witnessed by a solicitor. However, in this case, the S/N GOZrmxBkkmiJkzkbrXJYQ solicitor concerned did not witness the signature of D1 on the transfer documents. As such, the SPA is void.

I disagree. First, it must be pointed out that the SPA is not an section 211 (1) of the National Land Code. The SPA is a contractual agreement. Although it may be desirable and usually done in practice, it is not a legal requirement that the execution of the SPA must be witnessed by a solicitor. As such, the fact that the solicitor concerned was not present when D1 signed the SPA does not make it void.

Second, the applicable memorandum of transfer (Form 14A). That document has not been presented to the land office for registration since the SPA has yet to be completed. Any defect in the memorandum of transfer (Form 14A) can be rectified before it is presented for registration at the land office.

Third, the underlying purpose of the attestation requirement under section 211 of the National Land Code is to prevent forgery. If it is confirmed that the signor is in fact the person who executed the document, the non - attestation does not affect the validity of the document.

D1 cannot be permitted to escape his contractual obligation simply because his signature on the transfer documents was not properly attested. Especially when it is not in dispute that D1 had signed the transfer documents.

On this aspect, the High Court case of Wee Huay Fong v Pentadbir Tanah, Klang & Anor [2002] 3 MLJ 572 at 579 is instructive : purpose of s 211 of the NLC with regard to attestation of instruments of dealing, is to prevent forgery of the charge document. If the chargor herself does not deny signing the said charge document, the purpose of requiring the attestation has been served, ie it is confirmed that the chargor is in fact the person who executed the charge. I am of the view in interpreting the provision of a statute, the court should look to the purpose of the act, ie the mischief it is intended to address (see Citibank v Mohamad Khalid Farzalur Rahaman & Ors [2000] 4 MLJ 96). Here, the mischief is forgery. Section 211 of the NLC seeks to prevent forgery by ensuring that an attesting witness certifies that the person executing the charge is in fact the chargor. If, as in this case, the chargor does not dispute the fact that she is the person who executed the charge, this mischief has been addressed. The purpose of s 211 of the NLC has been met. Therefore, there is no breach of s 211 of the NLC. The said charge is therefore not a void instrument, and once registered become indefeasible by virtue of s 340 Issue regarding procurement of state authority approval

In submissions, D1 alleges that the SPA is void for purportedly failing to obtain the state authority approval as required by clause 4.1 of the

First, this matter was not pleaded. D1 cannot rely on unpleaded facts to support its case.

Second, P says that her solicitors took all steps necessary to obtain the requisite state authority consent. However, the application could not be made because D1 (as the vendor) failed to provide solicitors with a copy of the title to the property.

For the reasons above, I am satisfied that P has proven on the balance of probabilities that D1 signed the transfer documents while having full knowledge that he was selling the property to P for RM 40,000. D1 is in breach of the SPA by refusing to take steps to transfer the property to P.

Accordingly, I grant a decree of specific performance as prayed for by P. I order D1 to implement the SPA and enable P to purchase the property in accordance with the terms of the SPA.

I award costs of RM 10,000 in favour of P. Dated 10 December 2025 Quay Chew Soon Judge High Court of Malaya Shah Alam, Selangor Civil Division NCvC 11 S/N GOZrmxBkkmiJkzkbrXJYQ Counsels Mohammad Asghar Nadjmi (Messrs. Asghar) for the Plaintiff Muhammad Irsyad bin Mohamad Hassan (Messrs. Omar Ismail Hazman & Co.) for the 1st Defendant Case reference 1. NVJ Menon v The Great Eastern Life Assurance Co Ltd [2004] 3 MLJ 38 2. Tan Kok Siang v Kemuning Setia Sdn Bhd [2018] 6 MLJ 652 3. Kiong Man v Kishen [1971] 1 MLJ 54 4. Wee Huay Fong v Pentadbir Tanah, Klang & Anor [2002] 3 MLJ 572 Legislation reference 1.