Chapter 2 Land Part 2

Part or privy to contract
Assets v Mere Roihi PC: “The fraud must be brought home to the person whose registered title is
impeached or to his agents”.
Datuk Jagindar Singh & Ors v Tara Rajaratnam F: Tara, RP lived on land with husband and children.
Husband’s brother obtained a loan from HSBC. Husband persuaded Tara to put land as security.
Jagindar, a lawyer, was guarantor for the loan. He and 2 friends went to Tara’s house and asked her to
sign a few docs. They misrepresented that the security was to be effected by a transfer. Tara had
transferred her land to the friends. The land was eventually transferred to Jagindar’s development
company. The land was subdivided and sold to various purchasers. H: There was fraud to defeat
Suppiah, Arul and the development company’s title. However, the purchasers’ title could not be
defeated since they were bona fide purchasers for value without notice of fraud.
Intention to Cheat
Goh Hooi Yin v Lim “it is not enough to show that the transfer had the effect of depriving the plaintiff
of a known existing right. Must be shown that the transfer was executed with the intention of
cheating the plaintiff of such right.
Standard of Proof for Fraud
-Beyond Reasonable Doubt
Saminathan v Pappa The FC held that the Standard Of Proof for fraud in civil proceedings would be
BRD
Doshi v Yeoh Tiong Lay
The A was the registered owner of premises in KL. He obtained a loan from a lawyer and deposited
his documents of title together with 2 blank transfer forms duly executed by him to the lawyer. Upon
default of payment, the lawyer transferred the premises to a company which was subsequently
transferred to YTL, the current RP. YTL charged the land back to the company. The lawyer was
involved in both transactions. The argument is that the knowledge is imputed on the client to know
about the fraud committed earlier. Held: YTL can retain the title. The solicitor’s knowledge cannot be
imputed on the client to know about the fraud. Need to prove actual knowledge, not constructive
knowledge.
Tai Lee Finance Co Sdn Bhd v Official Assignee & Ors
OCBC Bank (M) Bhd v Pendaftar Hakmilik, Negeri Johor Darul Takzim
In this case, the A bank was the chargee of a land granted by one Ng See Chow. Due to a default in
payment, the A applied for the sale of the land. However, one Ng Kim Hwa claimed that he did not
execute any transfer in favour of Ng See Chow and that the land was his. Court held that the A’s
interest as chargee over the land was liable to be defeated under s.340(2)(b) and the proviso to
s.340(3) didn’t apply although it was an innocent purchaser for value. The principle established in
OCBC case is that a chargee can only rely on the proviso in s.340(3) if the charge was granted after
the land title was subsequently transferred, i.e. 2 t ransfers had taken place.
Owe Then Kooi v Au Thiam Seng
OTK brought action against ATS and a bank Foreclosure by bank against ATS and other RP of land.
OTK claim to be RP of 1/7 of land and ATS fraudulently transferred it to himself. OTK sent to prison
and asked ATS to hold the 1/7 for him on trust. OTK signed docs in prison brought by lawyer’s clerk,
but he x understand English. H: ATS effected transfer fraudulently. Title reverted to OTK but the
charge remain vested in the bank because bank only acquired interest as charge in land not a title to
the land.
Loke Yew v Port Swettenham Rubber Co Ltd
F: Eusope was the registered owner of 322 acres of land, and the A (Loke Yew) was in possession of
58 acres of it under unregistered Malay documents, making him the owner subject to payment of
rent. The Rs, who knew about the A’s interest bought from Eusope the 322 acres excepting the said
58 acres. However, a transfer for the whole of the 322 acres were prepared, and the Rs induced
Eusope to sign by saying that they would purchase the A’s interest and this was reduced into writing.
After obtaining the entire 322 acres, R ordered A to give up possession of the 58 acres. H: The PC
found for A and that the Rs acquired title through fraud. The Rs had more than mere knowledge of
A’s unregistered interest. The assurances it made to Eusope had been made to induce Eusope to
execute the transfer of the land and amounted to a deliberate plan to deprive A of his interest.

Chapter 2 Land Part 2

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Chapter 2 Land Part 2

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Chapter 2 Land Part 2

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Part or privy to contract

Standard of Proof for Fraud

-Beyond Reasonable Doubt

Doshi v Yeoh Tiong Lay

Tai Lee Finance Co Sdn Bhd v Official Assignee & Ors

Owe Then Kooi v Au Thiam Seng

Loke Yew v Port Swettenham Rubber Co Ltd

You might also like