Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
QUALIFIED TITLE
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.
Held:
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
Facts:
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.
Held:
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.