• Apartment di Cyberjaya untuk disewa

    Untuk mereka yang bekerja di Cyberjaya dan Putrajaya, kami ada apartment-apartment yang cantik dengan harga terbaik di Cyberjaya. Hubungi 012-3547636 untuk pertanyaan.

  • Buku-buku Terbitan Kasi Terbit

    Kasi Terbit dah ada banyak koleksi buku-buku yang panas dan bakal memberi manfaat kepada anda. Hubungi 0123547636 untuk mendapatkannya.

  • Buku Hartanah Panas

    Beli 5 buku, kos posnya percuma. Tak kisahlah pos ke Semenanjung atau pos ke Sabah dan Sarawak. Whatsapp 0123547636 dengan keyword 'buku property' ya....

  • Nak jual, beli atau sewakan rumah?

    Saya sedia membantu jika hartanah anda di Lembah Klang atau Pahang. Hubungi saya 0123547636

  • Kasi Terbit dengan koleksi buku panas

    Kita ada koleksi buku-buku hartanah, buku travel dan buku perubatan. Lebih unfo akan ada di sini ya.

kes boonsom boonyanit: konsep ke2 dan ke3 yg anda perlu faham

ok, sambung tutorial kes boonsom boonyanit.
anda dah faham doctrine of judicial precedence kan.

skang ni saya nak cerita dua konsep lagi.

1) immediate purchaser dan subsequent purchaser.
immediate purchaser ni yg beli direct dr kita.
subsequent purchaser pula adalah pembeli seterusnya.
contoh, kita jual satu rumah kepada ali. Ali adalah immediate purchaser kita.
bila ali jual rumah tu kepada raju, raju merupakan subsequent purchaser kita.
tapi raju adalah immediate purchaser kepada ali.
bila raju pula jualkan rumah tu kepada siti, siti juga adalah subsequent purchaser kita.
siti juga adalah subsequent purchaser kepada ali
dan siti adalah immediate purchaser kepada raju.
begitulah seterusnya...

2) bona fide purchaser dan mala fide purchaser
bona fide (sebutannya bo-na-fi-dey) purchaser adalah pembeli yg membeli dengan niat baik, tanpa sebarang niat jahat atau tidak melalui cara penipuan.
Dia juga tidak tahu menahu sebarang transaksi penipuan yg berlaku.
Dia hanya membeli dengan niat baik dan mengikut prosedur yang betul dan mengikut undang2.
bona fide purchaser ni kiranya innocent person la..

tetapi mala fide (sebutannya ma-la-fi-dey) purchaser adalah pembeli yg membeli dengan niat jahat, melalui mekanisme penipuan atau penindasan atau beliau mengetahui niat jahat, pamalsuan, penipuan atau pelanggaran undang2 yg berlaku di dalam pembelian itu.

hehe.. tamat dah pelajaran hari ni.
senang nak faham kan.
lepas ni baru saya cerita tetang kes boonsom boonyanit tu dan kesannya kepada kita pembeli, pemilik dan penjual hartanah.

(penerangan saya ni mungkin kurang tepat dr segi takrifan undang2.
saya cuma gunakan bahasa yg mudah bg orang yg tidak ada asas undang2 tanah utk memahami sedikit sebanyak konsep 'indefeasibility of title' yg terkandung di dalam kes boonsom boonyanit ini..
jgn pulak sapa2 guna utk jawab assignment ya!)
Share:

Ilham Apartment untuk disewa dan jual



--THE APARTMENT IS NO LONGER AVAILABLE FOR RENT. RENTED OUT.-----




Ilham Apartment for rent and sale

Rakan sepejabat saya nak sewakan satu apartment di Shah Alam.
Ilham Apartment di U2 TTDI Shah Alam.
berhampiran dengan Politeknik, Kolej PTPL, Giant, Kampus MSU yang baru.
tak jauh la dari seksyen 13 Shah Alam dan Glenmarie.
3 bilik tidur, 2 bilik air.
Boleh masuk segera sebab rumah ni memang dah kosong.
Rumah kosong tanpa perabot, tingkat atas.
Sewa rumah ni rm700, standard la kawasan ni.
Deposit 2+ 1 dan deposit utiliti rm300.

Selain nak sewa, member saya ni sebenarnya nak jual rumah ni.
Kalau ada yg berminat.
Dia nak jual RM120K.
keluasan dlm 750 sqft.. lebih kurang la
sini market bagus sebenarnya. Target penyewa adalah student poli, student PTPL dan pekerja di Shah Alam.
Kalau dulu orang kata sini kawasan banjir, tapi saya tgk diorg dah baiki sistem pembetungan di sini.
Sebab sini kan kawasan rumah mahal2.. so kena baiki cepat la..
Ok, kalau berminat nak sewa atau jual, bgtau saya.
Share:

kawan saya beli rumah!


minggu lepas saya sibuk tolong kawan saya beli rumah pertamanya.
kawan saya ni duduk kat taratak muhibbah, taman desa.
rumah yg sama kami duduk zaman dia bujang dulu.
bila pejabat saya pindah ke putrajaya, saya pindah ke sungai merab.
dia dan lela stay.
bila dia kahwin, lela keluar.
dia stay dgn husband dia.
boleh kata, rumah warisan jugak la tu kan.. sebab nama dlm kontrak sewaan asalnya nama saya, saya pindah ke nama dia.

taratak muhibbah ni mmg muhibbah sungguh.. sebab ada pelbagai bangsa.
ramai india dan melayu, tapi ada juga cina.
then ada juga penyewa orang indonesia, bangladesh.. tapi masih terkawal.
duduk sini dulu, yang bestnya dekat dengan midvalley.
nak ke pusat bandar dekat, nak ke shah alam pun cuma 25 minit, nak ke bandar tun razak cuma 15 minit, nak ke puchong pun dalam 20 minit.
kecuali jam yg melampau la kan...
sbb taman desa ni kat tengah2..
kurang best sbb takde lrt jer.. kalau ada, mmg pack la..
masa saya duduk dulu, bas taman desa sengal juga. selalu lambat.
saya selalu jalan kaki ke simpang masuk kat jalan klang lama tu, then ambil bas kat situ.
bas puchong - kl atau OUG - Kl banyak.

minggu lepas, saya jumpa ada orang nak jual taratak muhibbah.
saya tak layak beli.
so, saya pas kat dia.
mmg sebelum ni, setiap kali saya jumpa dia, saya akan bagi motivasi utk dia beli rumah.
(siapa jadi kawan saya, pasti akan dapat motivasi percuma ni.. hehehe)

alhamdulillah dia memang berminat sebab sebelah blok yg dia duduk je..
harga rm58K, keluasan 580sqft.
2 bilik, 1 bilik air yg ada shower dan toilet dan 1 lagi tu cuma ada toilet duduk je.
sekarang ni rumah tu disewa oleh satu syarikat yg diduduki oleh pekerjanya dari pakistan.
lelaki.. tapi elok diorg ni duduk rumah tu.
takde rosak, rumah bersih
cuma ada katil kat ruang tamu.. hahaha
tp owner ni sewakan murah.. rm400 je
so, kalau dah dpt kunci nanti, mungkin kawan saya nak upkan sewa ikut harga semasa.
tak pun, suruh je mereka keluar. cari penyewa lain..
tengok mana yg sesuai la..

gambar taratak muhibbah saya ambil dari laman web fulhouse.




Booking 3% dah bayar, dokumen owner semua dah dapat dari agent.
Tinggal nak apply loan dan jumpa lawyer utk prepare s&p sahaja.
Gambaro Ina!
Share:

penerangan kes boonsoon - konsep pertama anda kena faham

ok,

sebenarnya kes boonsom boonyanit yg saya highlight minggu lepas merupakan satu keputusan yg sangat ditunggu2..
satu keputusan yg sangat dihargai oleh kita semua pemilih hartanah.

sebelum saya cuba terangkan dgn bahasa mudah dan simple yg boleh, saya nak terangkan 3 konsep penting dahulu yg anda perlu faham.

1) doctrine of judicial precedence
jgn suh saya translate apa makna istilah ini.. sbb saya blaja dlm BI dan saya tak berani nak translate istilah ini ke istilah BM ikut sesuka hati saya
tp saya pasti anda semua lg terer english dr saya.
jadi at least anda faham la kan perkataan tu
doctrine of judicial precedence ni merupakan satu doktrine atau amalan atau fahaman yg mana sesebuah mahkamah perlu mengikut keputusan mahkamah yg lebih tinggi dr segi hirarki dan lebih terdahulu jika fakta kesnya adalah sama.
di malaysia, mahkamah ni ada hierarki.
plg rendah mahkamah yg diuruskan oleh ketua kampung kita.. ketua kampung pun ada kuasa tau kalau hukuman tu kurg dr rm25 kalau tak salah saya.
then diikuti oleh mahkamah sesyen, kemudian mahkamah majistret, kemudian mahkamah tinggi, mahkamah rayuan dan yg tertinggi dlm hierarki di malaysia adalah mahkamah persekutuan.
stp mahkamah ada bidang kuasa tersendiri.
lg tinggi status mahkamah, lg tinggi bidang kuasa mereka.
so, kata la ada satu kes perbicaraan saman malu di mahkamah tinggi thn 1980.
let say kes ali dakwa ah meng di mahkamah tinggi. mahkamah tulis sebagai ali v ah meng
ali = plaintif, ah meng = defendant

kata la pd thn 1980 tu belum pernah ada kes yg mcm ni, dgn fakta kes yg sama.
so, mahkamah tinggi pun boleh buat keputusan sendiri berdasarkan undang2 dan bukti.
kata la ah meng salah.

then ah meng buat rayun ke mahkamah rayuan.
so, ah meng v ali
ah meng = appellant, ali = respondent
mahkamah rayuan pun teliti balik undang2 hasutan yg ada dan fakta kes.
mahkamah rayuan kata ah meng tak salah. dia dilepaskan.

then, tiba2 pd thn 2000, ada satu lagi kes yg hampir sama.
raju dakwa minah di mahkamah tinggi atas kes saman malu.
fakta kes yg hampir sama dgn kes ah meng v ali di mahkamah rayuan tadi.
so, oleh kerana wujudnya doctrine of judicial precedence, maka hakim mahkamah tinggi utk kes ini perlu mengikut keputusan ah meng v ali tadi.
so, minah tidak bersalah...
kecuali kalau fakta kes berbeza, barulah mahkamah tinggi tak perlu ikut decision dlm kes terdahulu...

cukup la kot korg faham ni je dulu. nnt saya sambung balik.

Share:

Mrs Boonsom Booyanit finally wins... after 20 years!

Alhamdulillah..
justice for malaysian land law upheld...
My pray for justice to Mrs Boonsom Boonyanit answered.

taken from The Star today at this url.


Federal Court reverses its decision in landmark land case (Updated)

By LISA GOH
lisagoh@thestar.com.my

PUTRAJAYA: Agrieved landowners can heave a sigh of relief following a landmark Federal Court judgment disallowing fraudulent land transfers.

On Thursday, a five-man Bench of the Federal Court unanimously ruled that its judgment in 2000 on the Adorna Properties Sdn Bhd v. Boonsom Boonyanit case “was erroneous.”

In departing from that judgment, the Bench -- comprising Chief Justice Tun Zaki Azmi, Court of Appeal President Tan Sri Alauddin Mohd Sheriff, Chief Judge of Malaya Tan Sri Arifin Zakaria and Federal Court judges Justices Zulkefli Ahmad Makinudin and James Foong Cheng Yuen -- held that the erroneous conclusion in Adorna properties needed to be remedied immediately.

Over the last decade, that apex court judgment had created a loophole in the law, causing many legit landowners to lose their lands through unscrupulous means via forged documents, as it allowed the transfer of a good title to a purchaser who buys the property in good faith, notwithstanding the forgery.

“I am legally obligated to restate the law since the error committed in Adorna Properties is so obvious and blatant.

“It is quite a well-known fact that some unscrupulous people have been taking advantage of this error by falsely transferring titles to themselves. I hope that with this decision, the Land Authorities will be extra cautious when registering transfers,” Justice Zaki ruled in his four-page supporting written judgment.

In the Adorna Properties case, the issue was over the sale of two lots of land in Tanjung Bungah, Penang, belonging to Boonsom Boonyanit, a Thai national.

An imposter claiming to be Sun Yok Eng @ Boonsom Boonyanit had affirmed a statutory declaration on June 18, 1988 that she had lost the original title to the land. The imposter then managed to obtain a certified copy of the title from the Land Office.

On April 6, 1989, the imposter affirmed a second statutory declaration declaring that the names Mrs Boonsom Boonyanit and Sun Yok Eng @ Boonsom Boonyanit on the title to the land were one and the same person, that is, Mrs Boonsom Boonyanit (imposter) with a different Thai passport number.

With the declaration, the imposter managed to perfect the registration of the memorandum of transfer in favour of Adorna.

Boonyanit then sued for the return of the land. However, the High Court ruled in favour of Adorna. On appeal, the Court of Appeal ruled in favour of Boonyanit.

Adorna then appealed, and the Federal Court, comprising then Chief Justice Tun Eusoff Chin, Chief Judge of Malaya Tan Sri Wan Adnan Ismail and Justice Abu Mansor Ali, held that Adorna had obtained an indefeasible title notwithstanding the forgery because it was a bona fide purchaser.

Boonsom’s son Kobchai Sosothikul made an application on July 16, 2002, to the Federal Court to set aside the decision. It was dismissed on Aug 27, 2004.

On Thursday, the Federal Court held that Bench in the Adorna case had miscontrued a proviso in the Section 340 of the National Land Code (NLC) 1965 , and applied it to Section 340(2) of the NLC, which led to the erroneous conclusion.

Section 340(2) of the NLC reads that the title or interest of any person shall not be indefeasible (not liable to being annulled or undone), in any case of fraud or misrepresentation; or where the registration was obtained by forgery; or where a title or interest was unlawfully acquired by the person in the purported exercise of any power conferrred by any written law.

“If it can be shown that the title was obtained by forgery or misrepresentation, then his claim can be defeated,” Justice Zaki ruled in his 29-page judgment, in referring to the principle of “immediate indefeasibility” on which Adorna judgement is based.

“By so doing the Federal Court gave recognition to the concept of immediate indefeasibility under the NLC which we think is contrary to its provisions.

“This error needs to remedied forthwith in the interest of all registered proprietors. It is, therefore, highly regretattable that it had taken some time before this contentious issue is put to rest,” he ruled.

The Federal Court had revisited the Adorna Properties case following an appeal in a similar circumstanced case -- Tan Yin Hong v. Tan Sian San & 2 Ors. -- which was first brought to court in 1987.

Tan, a Pahang landowner, was appealing against a Court of Appeal’s 2009 decision, which relied heavily on the principle of “immediate indefeasibility” in the Adorna case.

He named Tan Sian San, Cini Timber Industries Sdn Bhd and United Malayan Banking Corporation Bhd (now known as RHB Bank) as respondents in his suit.

In Tan’s case, the Pahang government had alienated and issued a land title in his name without his knowledge.

In 1985, Tan received a letter from the bank demanding a repayment for a sum amounting to RM309,000 for an overdraft facility given by the bank to a Cini Timber Industries.

Upon investigation, he discovered that a person named Tan Sian San (not related and who has since disappeared) had forged his signature in 1977, and created a power of attorney, a document stating that he was authorised to act on behalf of Tan Yin Hong.

With the forged power of attorney, Sian San then charged the land to RHB Bank in 1984 as security for a loan to Cini Timber Industries, and subsequently disappeared.

In 1987, Tan filed a suit against the bank. In 2003, the High Court dismissed his application, based on the Adorna Properties decision. The Court of Appeal upheld the ruling last year.

However, the Federal Court ruled Thursday that the bank’s charges against Tan Yin Hong could be set aside as they were based on void instruments.

The Federal Court also awarded RM75,000 in costs to Tan, who is still living in Kuantan.



Nota: kepada pembaca yang tak faham apa sebenarnya berlaku, sat ar..

saya cuba karang satu penerangan dengan bahasa simple utk anda faham.
Share:

Federal Court to deliver major decision on property sales by forgers this Thursday

i know this article might seem too jargon for some property investors but not to conveyancing lawyers, advocates, solicitors and law students.
it is about an important review on a decision about who will get the land title if we, without knowledge, acquired a piece of land through a forged mechanism (maybe the seller is not the real owner. he cheat us and just forged the genuine owner's signature). So, if we still get the land, it is injustice to the genuine owner, rite? He lose his land. That is of my opinion.

I hope the review will reversed the decision made in the case of Adorna Properties Sdn Bhd v Boonsom Boonyanit which has create a lot of havoc to land law and for me, is quite injustice to the genuine property owner.

Here is the article, taken from Malaysian Bar website.



Federal Court to deliver major decision on property sales by forgers this Thursday
Contributed by Web Reporter

Monday, 18 January 2010 11:09am

KUALA LUMPUR, Mon: All eyes will be on the Federal Court this Thursday as it delivers a major decision whether to end nine years of gross injustice caused by the 2000 decision of the Federal Court in Adorna Properties Sdn Bhd v Boonsom Boonyanit ("Adorna Properties") or to follow and further entrench Adorna Properties in the laws relating to property sales by forgers in this country. It is one case which will be closely watched by property owners and conveyancers both within and without this country.

On October 29 last year, a strong five-member Federal Court, presided by Chief Justice Tun Zaki Azmi, was asked to determine the question "whether an acquirer of a registered charge or other interest or title under the National Land Code, 1965 by means of a forged instrument acquires an immediate indefeasible interest or title." The other judges were Court of Appeal President Tan Sri Alauddin Mohd Sheriff, Chief Judge of Malaya Tan Sri Arifin Zakaria and Federal Court judges Datuk Zulkefli Ahmad Makinudin and Datuk James Foong Cheng Yuen.

In the 2000 decision of Adorna Properties, delivered by the then Chief Justice Tun Eusoff Chin in a four-page judgment, the Federal Court ruled that such an acquirer could acquire an immediate indefeasible title and interest from a forger under section 340 of the National Land Code, 1965.

S 340 reads as follows:

"(1) The title or interest of any person or body for the time being registered as proprietor of any land, or in whose name any lease, charge or easement is for the time being registered, shall, subject to the following provisions of this section, be indefeasible.

(2) The title or interest of any such person or body shall not be indefeasible -
(a) in any case of fraud or misrepresentation to which the person or body, or any agent of the person or body, was a party or privy; or

(b) where registration was obtained by forgery, or by means of an insufficient or void instrument; or

(c) where the title or interest was unlawfully acquired by the person or body in the purported exercise of any power or authority conferred by any written law.
(3) Where the title or interest of any person or body is defeasible by reason of any of the circumstances specified in sub-section (2) -
(a) it shall be liable to be set aside in the hands of any person or body to whom it may subsequently be transferred; and

(b) any interest subsequently granted thereout shall be liable to be set aside in the hands of any person or body in whom it is for the time being vested:
Provided that nothing in this sub-section shall affect any title or interest acquired by any purchaser in good faith and for valuable consideration, or by any person or body claiming through or under such a purchaser.

(4) Nothing in this section shall prejudice or prevent -

(a) the exercise in respect of any land or interest of any power of forfeiture or sale conferred by this Act or any other written law for the time being in force, or any power of avoidance conferred by any such law; or

(b) the determination of any title or interest by operation of law."

The main thrust of Eusoff Chin's decision was that the proviso in s 340(3) would also apply to sub-section 340(2). Hence, Adorna Properties Sdn. Bhd. ("Adorna") which was a body falling within the meaning of sub-section 340(2) had obtained a good title by virtue of the proviso of sub-section (3) even though the properties were transferred to Adorna by way of a forged instrument of transfer.

Briefly, in Adorna Properties, a Thai, Boonsom Boonyanit, who resided in Thailand was the registered proprietor of two lots land in Tanjung Bungah, Pulau Pinang ("the said lands"). An impostor, one Mrs Boonsoom Boonyanit, claiming to be "Sun Yok Eng @ Boonsom Boonyanit" had affirmed a statutory declaration on June 18, 1988 that she had lost the original title to the said lands. The impostor then managed to obtain a certified copy of the title from the land office.

On April 6, 1989, the impostor affirmed a second statutory declaration declaring that the names Mrs Boonsoom Boonyanit and Sun Yok Eng @ Boonsom Boonyanit in the title to the said lands were one and the same person, that is Mrs Boonsoom Boonyanit (impostor) with a different Thai passport number. With this declaration, the impostor managed to register the transfer in favour of Adorna for a sum of RM12Million.

Boonyanit then sued for the return of the said lands. The High Court Judge of Penang, Justice Vincent Ng Kim Khoay, ruled in favour of Adorna (judgment dated April 25, 1995). On appeal, the Court of Appeal, comprising Gopal Sri Ram, Siti Norma Yaakob and Ahmad Fairuz, allowed the appeal in its judgment dated March 17, 1997. Adorna then appealed, and the Federal Court comprising Eusoff Chin, Wan Adnan Ismail and Abu Mansor Ali allowed Adorna’s appeal in its judgment dated Dec 13, 2000 and pronounced in open court on Dec 22, 2000 ("main judgment"), but by then Boonyanit had passed away in May that year.

In fact, Eusoff Chin's decision in Adorna Properties did not follow the 1994 Supreme Court decision in M & J Frozen Food Sdn Bhd & Anor v Siland Sdn Bhd & Anor which held that the issue of indefeasibility involving forgery under s 340 was based on the principle of deferred indefeasibility and not immediate indefeasibility.

In simple terms, the principle of deferred indefeasibility operates in this way: For example, A is the registered owner of the land. B forges A's signature and transfers the land to himself. B later sells and transfers the land to C. C has no knowledge of the forgery, and C obtains an indefeasible title. Or if B forges A's signature and transfers the land from A to C and C later transfers the land to D. Then, D and not C, who has no knowledge of the forgery, will obtain an indefeasible title. C and D in the first and second examples are known as subsequent purchasers under s 340(3). However, after Adorna Properties which embraces the principle of immediate indefeasibility, C will still get an indefeasible title if B forges A's signature and transfers the land immediately to C without first having transferred to B himself.

Hence, had the Federal Court in Adorna Properties applied the principle of deferred indefeasibility, Adorna would not have had obtained an indefeasible title because the land had not first been transferred to the impostor before it was transferred to Adorna and as such Adorna was not a "subsequent purchaser" within the meaning of sub-section 340(3).

Two unsuccessful attempts had also been subsequently made by Boonyanit’s family asking the Federal Court to review the main judgment. In the first attempt, the main ground advanced was that when the main judgment was delivered, Eusoff Chin had retired on Dec 19, 2000. Steve Shim, Haidar Mohd Noor and Mokhtar Abdullah dismissed the application in a judgment dated Feb 26, 2001. In the second attempt, the Federal Court comprising P.S. Gill, Rahmah Hussein and Richard Malanjun ruled in its judgment dated Aug 27, 2004 that they were not convinced that the interpretation given in the main judgment was patently wrong and had resulted in grave injustice.

There is, no doubt, that Adorna Properties has wreaked havoc in land transactions for the past nine years. Many landowners had also lost their properties due to forgery when their lands were immediately transferred to bona fide purchasers by forgers using forged instruments. As Adorna Properties is the decision of the apex court, it remains good law until it is legislatively reversed by an Act of Parliament or by another decision of the Federal Court. Unfortunately, when the opportunity arose in 2007, the Federal Court decided not to grant leave to appeal in the case Au Meng Nam & Anor v Ung Yak Chew & Ors 2007.

On Thursday, the Federal Court will have an opportunity to revisit Adorna Properties to decide whether to overrule it or follow this much criticised decision.

The case before the Federal Court on Thursday could be traced back to 1976 when without the knowledge of the appellant (plaintiff), Tan Yin Hong, the Pahang State Government had alienated and issued the document of title of a piece of land in Kuantan in favour of him. The appellant only came to know about the existence of the said Land in 1985 when he received a letter from the Third Respondent, United Malayan Banking Corporation Bhd (now RHB Bank Bhd) demanding repayment of the sums of RM111,825.95 and RM197,244.01 being the respective sums owing under an overdraft facility and term loan facility granted by the Third Respondent to the Second Respondent, Cini Timber Industries Sdn. Bhd. Upon enquiry, the appellant discovered that the First Respondent, Tan Yin Hong, who is now missing and not related to the appellant, had forged the appellant's signature by creating a power of attorney in favour of the First Respondent on February 7, 1977. With the forged power of attorney, the First Respondent had charged the said Land to the Third Respondent in 1984 as security for the loan facilities granted to the Second Respondent.

The appellant then sued the respondents in 1987 asking for various declaratory reliefs including an order that the charge and power of attorney be declared void ab initio. At the High Court at Kuantan, Justice Datuk Abu Samah Bin Nordin dismissed the appellant's claim on July 4, 2003. Upon appeal to the Court of Appeal, Justices Suriyadi Halim Omar, Zainun Ali and Ahmad Haji Maarop dismissed the appellant's appeal on February 19, 2009, holding that the Third Respondent had obtained immediate indefeasibility of its interest by applying the principle in Adorna Properties.

On October 29 last year, counsel T. Mura Raju who acted for the appellant and counsel Datuk Bastian Pius Vendargon and Ong Siew Wan who acted for the Third Respondent submitted that the question posed to the Federal Court should be answered in the negative, in that, the Adorna Properties had been wrongly decided and ought to be overruled. Both counsel emphasised that Eusoff Chin had erred as it was very clear in s 340(3) that the proviso only applied to "this sub-section (3)". Vendargon, however, submitted that the declaratory reliefs sought by the appellant ought to be dismissed on procedural grounds.

Head of the Civil Division in the A-G’s Chambers, See Mee Chun and its Deputy Head of Civil Division I, Puan Azizah binti Nawawi who appeared for the Attorney General as amicus curiae agreed with the submissions by the counsel for the appellant and the Third Respondent in that Adorna Properties should be overruled. See also revealed that the Attorney General's Chambers were looking at the possibility of amending s 340(3).

When invited to submit by Tun Zaki, counsel Roger Tan who held a watching brief for the Bar Council together with Tony Woon, informed the court that the Bar agreed with the submissions by all the counsel in that the principle of deferred indefeasibility should apply to s 340 and Adorna Properties was wrongly decided.

However, Tan said he disagreed with the submissions by the counsel for the appellant and Third Respondent with regard to using the decision of the Court of Appeal in OCBC Bank (M) Bhd v Pendaftar Hakmilik, Negeri Johor Darul Takzim 1999 (OCBC Bank) as an authority on the application of deferred indefeasibility. Tan submitted that the decision in OCBC Bank was wrong as the learned Court of Appeal judge, Datuk NH Chan had misapplied the principle of deferred indefeasibility by overstretching it. Tan, who is the former Chairman of Conveyancing Practice Committee of the Bar Council, added that had the principle been properly applied, the charge in favour of the appellant bank would have been valid as the land had already been transferred to the forger before the charge was created and the bank was therefore a "subsequent purchaser" entitled to protection under the proviso s 340(3).

In OCBC Bank, the appellant bank was the chargee of a plot of land in Batu Pahat, Johor ('the said land'). The charge in favour of the appellant had been granted by one Ng See Chow who was the registered proprietor of the said land. When the said Ng See Chow failed to pay for the overdraft facility, the appellant applied for, and the court granted, an order for sale of the land. However, one Ng Kim Hwa lodged a police report claiming that the land belonged to him and he claimed that he had not executed any transfer form in favour of Ng See Chow in respect of the land. The Court of Appeal, comprising Justices NH Chan, Abdul Malek and Mokhtar Sidin dismissed the appellant bank's appeal. Justice NH Chan ruled that the charge was invalid as any interest granted by an immediate proprietor or holder was also liable to be set aside.

Tan then referred to the paper entitled "Basics of Indefeasibility under the National Land Code"presented by Professor Teo Keang Sood at the 14th Malaysian Law Conference in October 2007 where the learned professor of law from the National University of Singapore said:

"...It is also crucial to note that section 340(2) does not provide that any interest subsequently granted by an immediate registered proprietor with a defeasible title (such as the defeasible title held by Ng See Chow) is also liable to be set aside thereunder, contrary to what was stated by NH Chan JCA in that part of his judgment reproduced above which is italicised. Being an interest subsequently created out of a title rendered defeasible under section 340(2), it comes within section 340(3)(b) which is enacted to deal with the position of a subsequent registered proprietor or holder of such an interest.

"If NH Chan JCA’s interpretation of section 340(2) is correct, it would mean that no subsequent interest created out of a defeasible title can ever come within section 340(3) and the proviso therein notwithstanding that the acquirer has acted in good faith and given valuable consideration. This is stretching the concept of deferred indefeasibility a little too far. All that section 340 intended is that the immediate registered proprietor should not have the benefit of the quality of indefeasibility conferred on him where the vitiating factors apply. No where in section 340 is it suggested that a subsequent registered proprietor or holder of an interest should suffer the same fate, especially where he has acted in good faith and given valuable consideration. It is unwarranted to restrict the scope of section 340(3) and the proviso thereto in such a manner. In fact, section 340(3) and the proviso thereto embrace and give effect to the well-known Torrens concept of a defeasible title operating as the root of a good title or interest in favour of a subsequent purchaser so long as the latter acts in good faith and gives valuable consideration."

The Federal Court will now deliver its decision on Thursday, January 21 at 9.30am.
Share:

Domain and domain 2 referral

For those buyers of Domain,

Please inform me through email or phone if your loan has been fully disbursed and you already got the key.
Because only at that moment i can contact the salesperson to claim the commission.

if you have inform me to use me as referral but then you cancel the booking, please let me know too.
this is for my housekeeping.


For Domain 2 buyers,
please check whether your loan has been disbursed the first 10% payment to the developer.
if so, please let me know.
because only after that i can claim the commission.
For Mrs Ayu and Christina, may i have the salesperson name with whom you place the booking?

Up untill now, i already claim for 3 buyers of Domain but none of the check released.
i see that the developers are too slow to process it.
For the case of mr raymond, Kenny told me that since there are 2 salesperson dealing with the buyer, there are arguments between them on the claim signing process.
...sigh...

even for my purchase, as i am using arlina as my referral, she still do not receive the check even though i already got my key at the end of sept 2009.

so, on last thursday, what i do is, instead of just calling the salesperson, i wrote a letter stated that i claim the commission for these 3 person to mr bernard, the sales manager.

hope to hear good news after this.


Share:

facebook

lately ada pembaca blog saya yg add saya as friend kat facebook

saya mmg tak pernah promote akaun facebook saya di blog
sbb bagi saya, facebook adalah tempat utk saya dan kawan2 saya communicate.. hal peribadi.. hal kawan2.
dan juga utk saya communicate dgn famili saya
so, bila ada pembaca blog saya add saya kat facebook, saya serba salah.
sebab anda takkan jumpa cerita tentang hartanah kat sana..
hanya cerita2 saya dan keluarga..
dan gurauan saya dan rakan2..
dan cerita2 peribadi saya yg saya takkan share di blog saya..

so setelah sekian lama saya abaikan je permintaan menjadi rakan oleh org yg saya tak kenal, lately ada beberapa permohonan saya terima
namun jika saya decide taknak terima lagi, saya harap anda faham..
facebook dan friendster adalah ruang peribadi saya..

nak baca tentang hartanah, cukup la di blog ini sahaja..
Share:

D Lagos Holiday Home




kawan saya, sumaiyah ada sebuah banglo percutian di A Famosa resort di alor gajah, Melaka.
banglo jenis D' Lagos.
kepada siapa yg belum familiar dgn banglo2 kat a famosa ni, mereka ada pelbagai jenis banglo.
d'faros, d'lagos dan d'amor.
setiap jenis, lain rekabentuk senibina, layout dan ciri2nya.
Namun semua masih bertemakan senibina Spanish atau Portugal.

banglo member saya ni jenis D'Lagos.
ada kolam renang, boleh memasak, siap dgn kelengkapan BBQ
banglo fully furnish.
ada 4 bilik siap dgn queen bed
dapur pun siap kelengkapan
stay sini, boleh relaks.. dan boleh enjoy di a famosa safari park, cowboy town atau jalan2 melaka..
saya dan kawan2 pun pernah stay sini dua kali.
sekali dtg, lepak dua malam terus. hehehe



rate utk 2 hari satu malam adalah seperti berikut:
- rm200 utk sewa satu bilik sahaja
- rm600 utk sewa satu banglo (weekdays)
-rm700 utk sewa satu banglo (weekend)

boleh tgk profile banglo ni kat facebook ni


kalau berminat, call kawan saya, sumaiyah 0123176150
atau emel yummy_0251171@yahoo.com
saya cuma tolong war2kan..
:)
Share:

anggerik link



Oleh kerana matjoe tanya pasal anggerik link kat komen entri saya terdahulu, maka saya jawab dlm satu entri khas terus.

Ok, Anggerik Link ni atau nama lain dia Ayu Indah merupakan fasa kedua projek rumah teres di Taman anggerik perdana.
Nama pemajunya Getaris Sdn. Bhd.
Leasehold.
keluasan tanah 20x70 dan 20x76
Harga actually dari rm 268,000 - 596,000
Harga paling murah yg ada masa launching hari tu adalah rm280K

Design cantik.. hijau putih.. kontemporari
4 bilik tidur, 3 bilik air.
Tingkat atas pun ada ruang rehat keluarga.
ada dry kitchen, wet kitchen.
Tile 2' x 2'.. cantik
bilik air semua tile sampai bumbung.
syiling pun tinggi.

Fasa pertama rumah teres dah siap diduduki pada awal 2008.
Selain dr rumah teres, di taman anggerik perdana ni, developer dah bina satu apartment kos rendah iaitu pangsapuri teratai
dan juga apartment kos sederhana iaitu pangsapuri Kenanga.
so anggerik link ni boleh kata projek keempat utk taman ni la..
Selepas ni, mereka nak bina apartment lagi kat sini. anggaran harga dlm rm160K
tp tak sure lagi bila nak strat projek ni.

Kawasan ni sangat dekat dgn Silk Highway dan Lekas.
Nak ke LDP, Federal Highway, Cheras, Sungai Long, Highway Utara Selatan, Saujana Impian, Semenyih mmg takde masalah.
Betul2 sebelah Bandar Teknologi Kajang, Anggerik Villa dan Anggerik Emas.
kalau dari arah kajang, jumpa junction anggerik PErdana dulu baru jumpa junction Bandar Tek.
betul2 dpn klinik kesihatan Kajang.



Pemaju ni takde website tapi boleh baca review dan lebih info kat web iProperty
Maisarah 0173329617

Share:

2009 wish list

kalau la saya ni anak org kaya..
atau ada gaji 5 angka
dah tentu saya beli salah satu antara dua projek ni pada 2009




2010 wish list? hm.. mana leh kasi tau.
sbb biasanya wish list hanya kekal as wish.. hehehe
Share:

selamat tahun baru

selamat tahun baru hijrah
dan selamat tahun baru masehi
lama tak update blog, saya harap saya masih belum terlewat.
byk projek hartanah menarik sepanjang 2009
kadar interest dan BLR terendah juga berlaku di 2009
dgn RPGT masih dikecualikan
2009 mmg masa terbaik utk membeli dan menjual hartanah
itu sebab sesetengh projek hartanah hanya 2 minggu dah sold out. hebat.
lama saya tak update blog sbb bila malam sibuk dgn projek lain
projek cuti semester.
tp aktiviti survey hartanah saya masih on.
cuma tak sempat menulis.
lately notebook saya dipinjam oleh kawan dan adik saya
so gambar2 rumah yg saya lawat tiada dgn saya
tu yg melemahkan semangat nak update blog tu..

baru2 ni saya melawat 633 residency.
freehold
condo build and sell di brickfield.
harga termurah utk studio 800++ sqft adalah rm403K
tolak bumi discount dan early bird jadi rm360K
lokasi bagus, target sewa bagus, bertentangan dgn villa scott.
free snp, free stamp duty.
yg tak bagus cuma poket saya takde 10% deposit.. hehehe

kemudian ada launching anggerik link depan rumah saya ni.
rumah teres, design kontemporari.
dulu mereka jual kepada pelanggan mereka sedia ada cuma rm259K
tp masa launching dah tinggal 280k plg murah
leasehold.
kalau takde deposit 10%, mereka akan guna harga non-bumi
tp stamp duty kena share bayar stamp duty dgn developer.. hehehe
yg paling best, tgk jiran2 ni sibuk pergi sana makan satay.
padahal mereka bukan nak beli pun.. isk isk...

pergi melaka hal kerja. sempat gak survey hartanah sana.
bayou lagoon park resort.
kat ayer keroh.
dah tak banyak unit tinggal.
dier buat style resot dan water theme park la..
ala2 tiara beach resort
yg tak best, tempoh leasehold dia tinggal 89 tahun.
dah rugi 10 thn.
dan kalau nak beli dan nak maintani sdr, kena beli tingkat 10 ke atas je..
dah tak banyak la dah.

masih ada few project yg dah diwarwarkan pada thn 2009 tp sampai sekarang masih belum start jual.
harap ada perkembangan.

p/s: org lain hepi hepi sambut thn baru.. tp saya dok baring tido sakit kepala lebih 24jam. apa hal.. huhuhu
Share:

Disclaimer

This blog is for information and experience sharing. The authors are not responsible for any loss or damages caused by the manipulation and application of information obtained from the blog.

Facebook

Popular Posts

Translate Blog

Highlight

Mentari Court below market untuk dijual

Tiga tahun lepas, seorang kawan saya pernah bertanya potensi Mentari Court. Masa tu harga jual di sana dalam 180k. Saya katakan, bole...

Blog Archive

Real Estate Bloggers

Arkib Blog