Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 3

Diman Bin Hassan v Pentadbir Tanah & Daerah Hulu Langat [2015] MLJU 887


PF’s Land (Lot 4th DF’s Land (Lot

2449) 50135) 0.28 hectares
2,787 square metre

PF’s Land 4th DF’s Land

2,787 square metre 2,380 square metres

Facts: After final title was issued. There was overlapped of 10,000 square feet. Concrete
wall on Pf’s land has been demolished by DF.

Pf’s originally claim for:

 He was the 1st time to be registered as proprietor therefore have priority
 Claim for damages for negligence & breach of statutory duty on 1 st-3rd DF (state
agencies involved in land administrator)
 Claim trespass on 4th DF

At hearing, PF willing to abandon the claim for demolished of wall.

Thus, the Primary claim of Pf’s is for:
 Declaration that Lot 2449 (Pf’s Land) to Pf.
 Lot 50135 (Df’s Land) to be cancelled entirely or amended in that part thereof
that overlapped with Lot 2449 (Pf’s Land).

 Lot 2449 (Pf’s land) takes priority over Lot DF as both qualified title & final title
of Lot 50135 (Df’sLand) were issued after the issuance of qualified title & final
title of Lot 2449 (Pf’sland)
 Land surveyor appointed by court confirmed that there is land overlap but court
stated that the overlapping occurred is irrelevant as the problem is on question of
law of priority between competing titles.
 On issue of negligence by 1st – 3rd Df, court did not touch on that as PF has
abandoned his claim for demolished concrete wall.
 However, court is mindful that there will be loss and damage inflicted upon 4th DF
(Since no counterclaim by 4th Df, then have to await other litigation)

Court Granted:
 Lot 2449 (Pf’s land) to Pf
 Lot 50135 (Df’s land) to be reduced so as not to encroach Pf’s land
 Costs of this action borne by 1st – 3rd Df and not to 4th Df
Poh Yang Hong v Pendaftar Hakmilik, Pejabat Pendaftaran Kuala Lumpur
[2016] 6 MLJ 413

 Pf entered into negotiation to buy the 1 st Df land. Pf then paid earnest deposit to
1st Df.
 Pf then conducted private search.
o GRN 232 - Registered owner = 1st Df
 Pf entered into SPA with 1st Df and paid the remaining amount.
 The transfer cannot be registered. Therefore Pf conduct official search.
o PN 20992 - Registered owner = Mohamad Nor
 There was actually 2 different set off titles & 2 different owners for the same land.

Pf’s Claim:
 2nd & 3rd Df (Pendaftar hakmilik & Gov of Malaysia) failed to ensure the
particular of land as per registered records are accurate.
 Failure to maintain accurate record/details of land which can be relied by Pf
 Maintain inconsistent/contradict entries of land & provide incorrect details of land
in private search resulted in Pf’s loss.
 Liability of Df arising from common law claim of damages for negligent act in
failure to maintain the records of Register of title.

2nd & 3rd Df’s Defence:

 They do not owe duty of care to PF
 The 1st private search was accurate at the time it was produced,
 Rely on S. 22 of NLC = no officer shall be liable to be sued for any act done by
him in good faith and in the intended exercise of any power or performance of
duty conferred or imposed on him.
 Forged title was caused by 3rd party and on them
 In regards of details in private search, they not liable as it was private search and
not official search.

 2nd & 3rd Df failed to ensure the details of land to be accurate.
o Even though it was an unknown 3rd party which had caused the creation of
fake title but the registration of particular in 2nd df’s records was the
responsibility of the df.
 2nd & 3rd Df owe Duty of care to Pf
o To keep & maintain register of titles of land
o To ensure information contain in the register is correct, true and
accurate and reflect the true and actual description of title to the land
as well as true identity of the owner.
 Pf suffered loss as relying on the result on private search
o Pf claim of money before private search (earnest depo) = failed/not
granted by court
o Pf claim of money (remaining balance of purchase price) after private
search = allowed by court
nd rd
 2 & 3 Df cannot rely on S.22 of NLC because the existence of 2 sets of record
of titles under 2 different owner in the same property without reasonable
explanation definitely did not qualify to rely on that section.

COA and Federal court affirmed the decision of High Court