NG KIN SONG@NG THIAN SONG v 1. ) Individu Tidak Diketahui (Menyemarakkan Identiti Yeoh Ah Guan Dan Mendakwa Memegang Ic No. (BA-22NCvC-206-06/2020)

PERSON UNKNOWN [IMPERSONATING THE IDENTITY OF YEOH AH GUAN AND CLAIMING TO HAVE NRIC NO.: 511107-08-6313-03-03]

GEETHA CHELVI A/P PANIR SELVAM [NRIC NO.: 730523-08- 5758] [PRACTISING UNDER THE NAME AND STYLE OF MESSRS GEETHA CHELVI & ASSOCIATES]

MEERA BAI RUBEN A/P RUBEN SAKTIRAJ MURTY [NRIC NO.: 790408-10-5658] AND S.P. VISA LETCHUMY A/P SALVA PATHY [NRIC NO.: 780701-14-5780] [AS THE ADMINISTRATORS OF THE ESTATE OF DEV ANAND A/L RUBEN SAKTIRAJ MURTY (DECEASED) [PRACTISED UNDER THE NAME AND STYLE OF MESSRS ANAND & ASSOCIATES]

THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF INSOLVENCY OF THE PROPERTY OF ABD MALEK BIN MOHAMAD NOR [NRIC NO.: 600517-02- 5091] [PRACTISED UNDER THE NAME AND STYLE OF MESSRS 16/07/2025 14:52:33

THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF INSOLVENCY OF THE PROPERTY OF DATO’ ABD AZIZ BIN MOHD NOOR [NRIC NO.: 511229-02- 5367] [PRACTISED UNDER THE NAME AND STYLE OF MESSRS

MESSRS MALEK & ASSOCIATES [SUED AS A FIRM]

[TO BE NAMED] [NRIC NO.: ] [SUED IN THE OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS THE COUNTER CLERK OF KLANG LAND OFFICE]

TO BE NAMED [NRIC NO.: ] [SUED IN THE OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS THE DATA ENTRY CLERK OF KLANG LAND OFFICE]

YEOH AH GUAN [NRIC NO: 511107-08-6313] … DEFENDANTS (IN THE ORIGINAL ACTION) BETWEEN YEOH AH GUAN [NRIC NO: 511107-08-6313] … PLAINTIFF

NG KIN SONG@NG THIAN SONG [NRIC NO: 540129-01-5375]

MEERA BAI RUBEN A/P RUBEN SAKTIRAJ MURTY (NRIC NO.: 790408-10-5658) AND S.P. VISA LETCHUMY A/P SALVA PATHY (NRIC NO.: 780701-14-5780) [AS THE ADMINISTRATORS OF THE ESTATE OF DEV ANAND A/L RUBEN SAKTIRAJ MURTY (DECEASED) PRACTISED UNDER THE NAME AND STYLE OF MESSRS ANAND & ASSOCIATES]

SIM SIOK YING [NRIC NO: 8101231-10-5572]

THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF INSOLVENCY OF THE PROPERTY OF ABD MALEK BIN MOHAMAD NOR [NRIC NO: 511229-02-5367] [PRACTISED UNDER THE NAME AND STYLE OF MESSRS

THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF INSOLVENCY OF THE PROPERTY OF DATO’ ABD AZIZ BIN MOHD NOOR [NRIC NO: 511229-02- 5367] [PRACTISED UNDER THE NAME AND STYLE OF MESSRS

MESSRS MALEK & ASSOCIATES [SUED AS A FIRM] … DEFENDANTS IN THE COUNTERCLAIM (IN THE COUNTERCLAIM) GROUNDS OF JUDGMENT Introduction 1. The plaintiff's claims against the 9th to 12th defendants include special, general, exemplary, and aggravated damages for breach of their statutory duties under the National Land Code and/or their negligence in issuing and allowing two existing Manual Title and/or DHKK Title for the same land at the same time. They are also alleged to have failed to maintain accurate entries in the Land Register, resulting in two HSM/DHKK titles being in the public domain.

This court awarded the plaintiff’s claim for special damages of RM1,188,631.00 and ordered the assessment of general damages, aggravated damages, and exemplary damages.

This court ordered costs of RM30,000.00 and 5% interest per annum from the date of judgment until full settlement.

The plaintiff has filed a Notice of Discontinuance regarding the 2nd and 3rd defendants.

The case against the 4th and 6th defendants has been struck out with liberty to file afresh.

It is noteworthy that the plaintiff chose not to sue the 13th defendant. The 13th defendant intervened to add himself as a defendant, and an order was granted in his favour.

Regarding the counterclaims filed by the 13th defendant against the plaintiff, the solicitors representing the plaintiff and the plaintiff’s daughter-in-law, the counterclaims were dismissed with costs of

The 13th defendant’s counterclaim against the Land Administrator and the Director of Land and Mines, Selangor, was allowed with costs of RM30,000.00.

The 13th defendant’s counterclaim against the Director of Insolvency concerning the properties of Abd Malek bin Mohamad Nor and Dato’ Abd Aziz bin Mohd Noor has been struck out without an order as to costs.

The 13th defendant’s counterclaim against Messrs Malek & Associates has also been struck out without an order as to costs.

The current appeal has only been filed by the 9th to 12th defendants concerning the court decision in the main suit. Brief Facts of the Case 12. The plaintiff claims to have purchased a parcel of land from Yeoh Ah Guan, the 1st defendant in the main suit, in 2016. The land is registered under title document PM4935, Mukim Klang, Daerah Klang, Negeri Selangor, and was previously registered under title HS(M) 23808 PT 30550, Tempat Revolusi Hijau Batu 5, Johan Setia, Mukim Klang, Negeri Selangor (hereinafter referred to as the "said Land").

The plaintiff's pleadings do not include a claim for the said Land. In his defence to the counterclaim, the plaintiff explicitly states that the 13th defendant, the actual Yeoh Ah Guan, is entitled to have the said Land returned to him upon proving his ownership before the court.

The actual Yeoh Ah Guan, who is the registered proprietor of the said Land and holds the original title under document of title HS(M) 23808 PT30550, Tempat: Revolusi Hijau Batu 5, Johan Setia, Mukim Klang, Daerah Klang, Negeri Selangor. In his counterclaim against the defendants, he has sought a declaratory order affirming that he is the registered and beneficial owner of the said Land.

It is an undisputed fact that the plaintiff, through his solicitors, who are the 2nd defendant, executed a Sales and Purchase Agreement with the 1st defendant in the main suit on 24-11-2016.

On 8-5-2017, the 9th defendant received the application from the plaintiff’s solicitors, the 2nd defendant, to transfer the land title to the plaintiff in the main suit. On the same day, the computerised issue document of title was issued to the plaintiff accordingly.

On 10-7-2017, the 5th defendant in the counterclaim lodged a private caveat in respect of the said Land upon a trust deed entered between the plaintiff in the main suit and the 5th defendant.

The actual Yeoh Ah Guan, who attended the Klang Land Office on 30-8-2018 to pay the quit rent for the said Land, discovered that his land had been transferred to the plaintiff. This prompted him to lodge a private caveat on 5-9-2018.

A Registrar’s caveat was lodged concerning the said Land on 13-9-

2018.

Subsequently, on 14-9-2018, the plaintiff was informed by the police that he had purchased the said Land from an impostor and that the actual Yeoh Ah Guan was not involved in the transaction.

The plaintiff alleges that the 9th to 12th defendants breached their statutory duties under the National Land Code 1965 and/or negligently issued the DHKK Title, Version 2, on 8-5-2017.

The 9th to 12th defendants denied the plaintiff’s allegations. The transfer was claimed to have been carried out in good faith. Sections 211, 302, and 303 of the National Land Code 1965 were said to have been complied with. Common Issues to Be Tried 23. The common issues to be tried are as follows:

Who is the legal and rightful owner of 0.815 hectares of the said Land?

(ii) Is the Plaintiff a victim of land fraud?

(iii) Whether the 9th to 12th defendants, jointly and/or severally, breached their statutory duties, including under Section 375 of the National Land Code 1965, by failing to maintain the Land Register accurately and/or the Computerised Land Registration System, thereby allowing two titles to exist concurrently for the same land in the public domain, to the detriment of the plaintiff.

(iv) Whether the 9th to 12th defendants, jointly and/or severally, acted negligently by failing to maintain the Land Register accurately and/or Computerised Land Registration, thereby allowing two titles to exist concurrently in the public domain for the same land, to the plaintiff’s detriment?

Decision of this Court I would address the first and second issues together. During the trial, the plaintiff’s witness, PW1, an Assistant Registrar of the National Registration Department, testified that the code “03” appearing on the 1st defendant’s national registration identity card (exhibits P2 & P2A) was never used by the National Registration Department.

PW1 also confirmed that the National Registration Department did not issue P2 or P2A. He stated that there are no records of P2 and P2A in the National Registration Department's system.

Evidence was presented through PW1 to establish that the 13th defendant’s national registration identity card is authentic (Exhibit

The 13th defendant consistently maintained that he had never sold his land to a third party, and this fact remained uncontested at all relevant times.

The 13th defendant submitted the original title deed to the said Land in court, and this fact remained uncontested throughout. DW1 testified on behalf of Pentadbir Tanah Daerah Klang dan Galian Negeri Selangor, confirming that the original title deed held by the 13th defendant is authentic. He also stated that the signature of the actual Yeoh Ah Guan differs from that of the impostor.

Having reviewed the evidence presented before this court, it is hereby concluded that the 1st defendant in the main suit is an impostor who used a false identity card to transact the said Land with the plaintiff in the main suit.

It is ruled based on the facts presented before this court that the 13th defendant is the legal owner of the said Land, and the plaintiff is a victim of a fraud committed by the 1st defendant, the impostor.

Moving on to the third and fourth issues, the 9th to 12th defendants argued that their duty was purely administrative, and no facts had established that they acted in bad faith.

They further argued that it was unfair to find them negligent of the fraudulent transaction involving the 13th defendant’s said Land, as they were not involved in any fraudulent conduct relating to the said Land.

They referred to the Court of Appeal case in Pendaftar Hakmilik, Pejabat Tanah Dan Galian Negeri Selangor v Bank Pertanian Malaysia Bhd [2016] 3 CLJ 851, which held that there is no duty on the Registrar to go behind the memorandum of transfer presented and investigate to satisfy himself that the name of the transferor or transferee stated in the memorandum of transfer was a correct party.

Reference was made to the Court of Appeal decision in Au Meng Nam & Anor v Ung Yak Chew & Ors [2007] 4 CLJ 726, where it was held that the purchaser had acted hastily and failed to undertake a proper investigation into the title or the individuals claiming to be the proprietors.

The 9th to 12th defendants contended that the plaintiff in the main suit and his solicitors failed to take sufficient steps to determine the status and details of the land in question; therefore, the principle established in Au Meng Nam applies to the present case before this court.

To be thorough, I must distinguish the facts before me from those in Au Meng Nam & Anor v Ung Yak Chew & Ors [2007] 4 CLJ 726 as follows:

In Au Meng Nam’s case, the court found that the purchaser made a hurried purchase without taking proper steps concerning the title and the individuals claiming to be the proprietors.

(ii) However, in the case before me, the plaintiff’s solicitors carried out a private land search. Furthermore, the plaintiff and his friend, PW3, visited the general area of the said Land. The plaintiff also verified the title against PW3’s survey plan.

I am also cautious about adopting the principle enunciated in Au Meng Nam’s case, as the 2024 Federal Court decision of Malayan Banking Bhd v Mohd Affandi Ahmad & Anor [2024] 10 CLJ 501, held that Au Meng Nam should be considered in its proper context. This was because it was based on its own set of facts, at a time when the Federal Court decision in Adorna Properties Sdn Bhd v Boonsom Booyanit [2001] 2 CLJ 133 was still applicable.

In the brief facts of this case, there is mention of two land titles for the same piece of land available in the public domain. It is now appropriate to gather the facts to explain the existence of these two titles in the public record.

DW1, the only witness for the Klang Land Office, testified that the Klang Land Office had voluntarily converted the Manual Title of the said Land to the computerised DHKK version 1 title. This was done without the 13th defendant’s knowledge.

The 13th defendant was never informed to surrender his original Manual Title to the Land Office. Schedules 14th and 16th of the National Land Code 1965 have been compromised by the Land Office.

The Land Office decided to issue a computerised DHKK Version 1 title without retrieving the manual title from the 13th Defendant.

It is an undisputed fact that the Land Office failed to follow its standard operating procedure by issuing a computerised DHKK Version 1 title without retrieving the manual title from the 13th defendant, which resulted in two titles existing in the public domain.

During the trial, no evidence was presented by the Land Office regarding how the DHKK version 1 title entered the public domain. What remained undisputed at all relevant times is that the 13th defendant has the manual title in his possession.

The Land Office did not explain why they failed to notify the 13th defendant to surrender his manual title in exchange for the computerised DHKK version 1 title.

DWI admitted during his cross-examination that the Land Office acted negligently by issuing the computerised DHKK version 1 title to a third party. The extract from the notes of evidence on pages 761/762, by DWI, is reproduced as follows:

DWI further testified that if Klang Land Office had used the security system (S.E.L.A.M.A.T.+ myIDENTITY) connected to Jabatan Pendaftaran Negara to verify the true identity of the registered owner, the discrepancies in facial features could have been detected. This would have prevented the fraudulent land transaction.

The 9th to 12th defendants did not dispute any of the facts outlined above. Their only objection was that it was an administrative act involving land transfer. However, they neglected the crucial, undisputed facts that led to the production of the transfer documents, specifically, the existence of two titles in the public records for the same property.

Klang Land Office failed to produce in court the original DHKK version 1 title or the digital copy that was lodged at its office for the purpose of the fraudulent land transaction.

DW1’s explanation that the DHKK version 1 title cannot be produced in court because it cannot be found or may have been destroyed is unacceptable under the 16th Schedule of the National Land Code

The Land Office has a statutory duty to capture the image of the previous version stored electronically in the land database. I invoke Section 114(g) of the Evidence Act 1950 on this fact.

The Klang Land Office's only action was to lodge a Registrar’s Caveat concerning the land once the fraudulent transaction was identified. There was a failure to exercise the broad powers granted to the authorities under Sections 421AA, 421AB, and 421AC of the National Land Code 1965. DW1 admitted in his evidence that there were no records to show that any investigation had been conducted into this serious matter at the Land Office. No police report was lodged. The High Court case of Low Khong Sheng v Techna Moorithy Kolundaveloo & Ors [2017] 1 LNS 742 is referenced.

It is recorded in the proceedings that the plaintiff’s application for interrogatories regarding the names and details of the 7th to 10th defendants was objected to by the Klang Land Office. The plaintiff’s appeal to the Court of Appeal was also dismissed.

However, during the cross-examination of DW1 by the plaintiff’s counsel, DW1 named the personnel of the Klang Land Office who accepted and registered the presentation documents for the fraudulent said Land transfer as follows:

Counter Clerk: Fazilah binti Abas (should be the 7th defendant);

(ii) Data Entry Clerk: Normala binti Jaafar (should be the 8th defendant);

(iii) Registrar: Siti Ruhani binti Jumiran (should be the 9th defendant).

None of these personnel mentioned were called as witnesses to clarify what transpired during the presentation of documents at the Land Office. The Klang Land Office consistently refused to provide these names to the plaintiff’s solicitors, which compelled them to file an application for interrogatories, which was denied.

It is important to note that the Klang Land Office's refusal to disclose their personnel's names to the plaintiff constitutes bad faith conduct. Accordingly, I invoke Section 114(g) of the Evidence Act 1950 regarding their failure to disclose or summon these individuals to testify in court.

Taking all these facts into account, which remain unchallenged, the findings of fact regarding the 9th to 12th defendants' breach of their statutory duties and negligence are as follows:

The Klang Land Office failed to present any evidence on how the DHKK version 1 title entered the public domain, despite the 13th defendant’s unrebutted evidence that the manual title of the said Land is in his possession.

(ii) No explanation from the Klang Land Office as to why they failed to notify the real Yeoh Ah Guan to surrender the manual title in exchange for the DHKK version 1 title. Despite this, the DHKK version 1 title entered the public domain, which is a curious yet accurate fact.

(iii) Failure to keep accurate entries in the Land Register and/or the computerised land registration system.

(iv) Failure to verify the authenticity of the impostor using Yeoh Ah Guan's fake identity card through the S.E.L.A.M.A.T. security system connected to the Jabatan Pendaftaran Negara.

The relevant authority is the Federal Court case of Pendaftar Hakmilik, Pejabat Pendaftaran Wilayah Persekutuan Kuala Lumpur & Anor v Poh Yang Hong [2016] 9 CLJ 297, where it was decided as follows: “[31] We are of the considered view that the duty of care on the part of the second and the third defendants in the context of the present case is two-fold. Firstly, there is a statutory duty under the NLC to maintain the register of all lands caused to be registered at the registry, and in particular to ensure that the information contained in the register is correct, true and accurate and reflects the true and actual description of the title to the land as well as the true identity of the registered proprietor thereof. Secondly, there is a common law duty of care, whereupon there can be a claim for negligence for the same alleged wrong.

It was also decided in the Court of Appeal case of Pendaftar Hakmilik Negeri Selangor & Ors v Shaifulizam Mohd Saleh & Anor And Another Appeal [2020] 5 CLJ 595, as follows: “[38] Such acts and omissions on the part of the land office amount to improper conduct and these improper conduct of the land office reflect bad faith on their part, which, in our view, clearly show negligence on their part. Further, the non-compliance of the NLC shows a breach of their statutory duty, which is equally of a common law duty of care .”

The authorities mentioned above support the Land Office’s dual responsibilities, which are statutory duties under the National Land Code 1965 and the common law duty of care, used interchangeably.

The 9th to 12th defendants in the main suit asserted their right to rely on immunity granted under Section 22 of the National Land Code 1965. They cited the Court of Appeal case of Supreme Tribute Sdn Bhd v Dato’ Haji Mohd Amin bin Ahmad Yahya [2018] 1 LNS 1006 and the Court of Appeal decision in JW Properties Sdn Bhd v Perbadanan Kemajuan Pertanian Selangor & Anor [2016] 1 CLJ 13.

After thoroughly examining the facts, I conclude that the 9th to 12th defendants acted improperly and in bad faith, showing negligence. The simple failure to follow the statutory requirements under the National Land Code 1965 to keep accurate records constitutes a breach of the common law duty of care.

No explanation was provided as to how two genuine titles circulated publicly when evidence demonstrated that the Klang Land Office was responsible for this situation. Therefore, they cannot rely on Section 22 of the National Land Code 1965 to avoid the consequences of the mess they have caused, which ultimately resulted in an innocent man losing ownership of the said land and another elderly man losing his money over a fraudulent transaction involving the same Land. The relevant Federal Court in the case of Pendaftar Hakmilik, Pejabat Pendaftaran Wilayah Persekutuan Kuala Lumpur & Anor v Poh Yang Hong [2016] 9 CLJ 297 held as follows: “[30] We agree with the finding of the Court of Appeal that the intended protection under s.22 of the NLC is for a wholly different set of circumstances. The existence of two sets of record of title under two different persons as the registered owners of the same property without reasonable explanation definitely will not qualify to be an act done in good faith and in the intended exercise of any power, or performance of any duty , conferred or imposed on him by or under this Act.”

The 9th to 12th defendants, in their submissions, contended that the plaintiff’s failure to name the public officers, the 7th to 10th defendants, is fatal, and the plaintiff’s claim for damages cannot be maintained as the tortfeasors have not been identified.

They submitted the relevance of Sections 5, 6 and /or 7 of the Government Proceedings Act 1956 to this case. However, in their pleaded defence, they state that the naming of the 7th to 10th defendants was unnecessary, as Sections 5 and 6 of the Government Proceedings Act 1956 are not applicable and/or not relevant, based on Section 12 read with Section 5 of the National Land Code 1965.

This court is aware at all times that the defendants had objected to the plaintiff’s attempts to obtain the names of the 7th to 10th defendants.

The High Court dismissed the plaintiff’s application for interrogatories, and the Court of Appeal upheld the High Court’s decision that there is no necessity to name the 7th to 9th defendants, as it is sufficient to name the Director of Lands and Mines of Selangor (11th Defendant) as a party.

I am satisfied from the facts before this court that the plaintiff has made all satisfactory efforts to obtain the names of the 7th to 10th defendants, which have been actively denied by the 9th to 12th defendants in the main suit.

I also entirely agree with the plaintiff's submission that the 9th to 12th defendants cannot approbate and reprobate by diverging from their pleaded defence at the submission stage after the trial has closed. This is particularly true when facts show that the plaintiff has diligently proved that all reasonable efforts were made to obtain the names of the 7th to 10th defendants. The Federal Court case of Nabors Drilling (Labuan) Corporation v Lembaga Perkhidmatan Kewangan Labuan [2020] 10 CLJ 732 is referred.

I rule that the 11th and 12th defendants are vicariously liable for all breaches of statutory duties, negligent acts, and omissions of the 7th to 10th defendants in this case.

Conclusion I rule that this is a fit and proper case for the plaintiff’s case to be allowed as against the 9th to 12th defendants based on the findings of fact as narrated above. Dated:16th July 2025 (INDRA NEHRU SAVANDIAH) Judicial Commissioner High Court of Malaya Shah Alam Selangor Date of Decision: 30th April 2025 Counsels: For the Plaintiff : David Hoh & Cassandra Choo Messrs Lim & Hoh For the 3rd & 4th Defendant : Tan Kek Teng & Clarence Hng Ying Hui Messrs Lim Kian Leong & Co. For the 9th – 12th Defendants : Puan Namirah Hanum binti Muhamad Albaki Chambers of Selangor State Legal Advisor For the 13th Defendant : Kam Booi Keong & Muhamad Fayyadh bin Muhd Alwi