Boonsom Boonyanit v Adorna Properties Sdn Bhd

Facts

 Penang 1989
 Registered proprietor of two piece of land – Tanjung Bungan
 Discovered-transfer-register-without knowledge
 Imposter-false statutory declaration-lost title
 Manage to obtain certify copy of title-transfer to defendant -RM1.8m
 Bone purchaser-indefeasibility-15/12/1988

Judgement :
High Court
 According to Section 340 (3),
 Adorna Properties Sdn.Bhd was a bona fide purchaser for value, with the result that they
obtained indefeasibility of title to the lands notwithstanding the forgery.
 High Court ruled in favour of Adorna.

The Court of Appeal

 Boonsom Boonyanit was appealed in Court of Appeal.
 The Court of Appeal ruled in favour of Boonyanit
 According to Section 340(2) and Section 340(3), both of them are two separate
provisions. Therefore, provision in section 340(3) cannot be used for the situation of
fraud which should be covered in Section 340(2).
 Besides that, the balance of probabilities in which the confirmation of the fraud exists
shows the standard of proof, thus Boonsom win.

Federal Court
 Adorna then appealed in Federal Court.
 Federal court held that Adorna had obtained an indefeasible title notwithstanding the
forgery because it was a bona fide purchaser.
 The judgement is heavily criticised because the court just apply Section 340(3) in this
case, in actual they must be interrogated more towards the forgery issue of this case.
 Therefore, Boonsom Bunyanit lost her property

Adorna sold the land over to Diamaward (M) Sdn.Bhd which is a subsidiary of Hunza
Properties Berhad for RM13,220,000 on 7th December 2004. Lastly, the land has been
developed into Infinity Beachfront Condominium.
Tan Ying Hong v Tan Sian San & Ors
Facts

 Pahang state government “mysteriously” alienated a government land

 TYH aware when received letter from UMBC- demanding repayment 300,000 being the
outstanding loan sum, for a loan granted by bank to Cini Timber Industries.
 Discovered a conman TSS forged signature, charged the property to bank as security for a loan
 Not entirely same as BB’s case, but the crux is same.
 Relate to the issues of fraud and indefeasibility of title.