[2020] 1 LNS 101 Legal Network Series

DALAM MAHKAMAH RAYUAN MALAYSIA

(BIDANG KUASA RAYUAN)
[RAYUAN SIVIL NO. B-01(NCVC)(A)-87-02/2019 DAN
RAYUAN SIVIL NO.B-01(NCVC)(A)-91-02/2019]

ANTARA

1. NAZARUDDIN MOHD SHARIFF @ MASARI

(NO. K/P: 560429-10-5039)
(selaku Pentadbir Harta Pusaka arwah Masri Bin Khatib)
2. ROZIDIN MASARI
(No. K/P: 591017-10-5069)
(selaku Pentadbir Harta Pusaka arwah Masri Bin Khatib)
… PERAYU-PERAYU

DAN

1. PEJABAT TANAH & DAERAH HULU LANGAT

2. MOHD FOWZI ABDUL HAMID

(NO. K/P: 581112-10-6925)
(atas Kapasiti individu & selaku
Pentadbir Bersama harta Pusaka Kamin Bin Khatib)

3. ROSLAN MAULUD
(NO. K/P: 500618-10-5439)
(atas Kapasiti individu & selaku
Pentadbir Bersama harta Pusaka Kamin Bin Khatib)
… RESPONDEN-
RESPONDEN

1
[2020] 1 LNS 101 Legal Network Series

[Dalam Mahkamah Tinggi Malaya Di Shah Alam

Dalam Negeri Selangor Darul Ehsan, Malaysia
Saman Pemula NO: BA-24NCVC-439-04/2018

Dalam Perkara Harta Pusaka arwah

Masri Bin Khatib;

Dan

Dalam Perkara Perintah Mahkamah

Tinggi Shah Alam bertarikh
25.04.2017 melalui prosiding BA-
24NCVC-1371-12/2016;

Dan

Dalam Perkara Perintah Mahkamah

Tinggi Shah Alam bertarikh 17.-
5.2017 melalui prosiding BA-
24NCVC-916-09/2016;

Dan

Dalam Perkara Borang H bertarikh

08.09.2015 tersebut;

Dan

Dalam Perkara Borang K bertarikh

03.04.2016 tersebut;

Dan

Dalam Perkara Geran Pentadbiran

bertarikh 11.11.1957;

Dan

2
[2020] 1 LNS 101 Legal Network Series

Dalam Perkara Warta Kerajaan

Negeri Selangor Darul Ehsan
bertarikh 07.11.2013; Dan

Dalam Perkara Carian Rasmi

Hartanah Lot 864, GM 2242, Mukim
Hulu Langkat Daerah Hulu Langat,
Negeri Selangor Darul Ehsan
bertarikh 07.02.2013;

Dan

Dalam Perkara Carian Rasmi

Hartanah Lot 864, GM 2242, Mukim
Hulu Langat Daerah Hulu Langat,
Negeri Selangor Darul Ehsan
bertarikh 29.05.2012;

Dan

Dalam Perkara Geran Mukim

Hartanah Lot 864, GM 2242, Mukim
Hulu Langat Daerah Hulu Langat,
Negeri Selangor Darul Ehsan
bertarikh 16.04.2015;

Dan

Dalam Perkara Pembetulan

Kesilapan dalam Dokumen
Hakmilik, dll di bawah Seksyen 380
Kanun Tanah Negara (KTN) 1965;

Dan

Dalam Perkara Ketidakbolehan

Disangkal Hakmilik & Kepentingan

3
[2020] 1 LNS 101 Legal Network Series

di bawah Seksyen 340 (1) Kanun

Tanah Negara (KTN) 1965; Dan

Dalam Perkara Artikel 13

Perlembagaan Persekutuan;

Dan

Dalam Perkara Seksyen 41 &

Seksyen 42 Akta Relif Spesifik
(Specific Relief Act):

Dan

Dalam Perkara Aturan 7 & Aturan

28 Kaedah- Kaedah Mahkamah
2012;

Dan

Dalam Perkara Aturan 92 Kaedah 4

Kaedah-Kaedah Mahkamah 2012
(KKM 2012).

ANTARA

1. NAZARUDDIN MOHD SHARIFF @ MASARI

(NO. K/P: 560429-10-5039)
(selaku Pentadbir Harta Pusaka arwah Masri Bin Khatib)

2. ROZIDIN MASARI
(No. K/P: 591017-10-5069)
(selaku Pentadbir Harta Pusaka arwah Masri Bin Khatib)
… PLAINTIF-
PLAINTIF

4
[2020] 1 LNS 101 Legal Network Series

DAN

1. PEJABAT TANAH & DAERAH HULU LANGAT

2. MOHD FOWZI ABDUL HAMID

(NO. K/P: 581112-10-6925)
(atas Kapasiti individu & selaku
Pentadbir Bersama harta Pusaka Kamin Bin Khatib)

3. ROSLAN MAULUD (NO. K/P: 500618-10-5439)

(atas Kapasiti individu & selaku
Pentadbir Bersama harta Pusaka Kamin Bin Khatib)
… DEFENDAN-
DEFENDAN]

Abstract: An administrator of a Muslim property must obtain a

faraid certificate from the Syariah Court, which will list the heirs
and the portions to be distributed to them according to Islamic
law. A faraid certificate can minimize the negative complications
surrounding the distribution of an estate. Hence, an action
brought in civil court by an administrator to determine ownership
of a property in the estate of a Muslim without first obtaining the
faraid certificate from the Syariah Court is bound to fail.

ISLAMIC LAW: Succession - Administration of estate of a Muslim -

Duty of administrator - Significance of faraid certificate - Whether
administrator of a Muslim property must obtain faraid certificate
from Syariah Court - Whether administrator could bring action in
civil court over ownership of property in estate of a Muslim person
without obtaining faraid certificate - Whether faraid certificate could
minimize negative complications surrounding distribution of estate

5
[2020] 1 LNS 101 Legal Network Series

LAND LAW: Ownership - Dispute - Administrator claiming

ownership of land - Administrator one of beneficiary of estate -
System in land office wrongly keyed administrator as owner of land -
Land office subsequently corrected error by amendment - Absence of
faraid certificate to show administrator was sole beneficiary of estate
- Whether any party who claims interest and ownership of land must
file an action for court to resolve dispute over said land - Whether
administrator could suddenly be owner of land without explanation -
Whether dispute could be resolved through affidavit evidence

[Appellant’s appeal dismissed with costs.]

Case(s) referred to:

Continental Court Sdn Bhd v. Fan Fong Hee & Ors [2013] 1 LNS 275
HC (refd)

Foon Seong v. Chan San Choon (F) [1947] 1 LNS 25 HC (refd)

Hassan Bin Seman & Ors v. Jusoh Bin Awang Chik [1981] 1 LNS 15
FC (refd)

Latifah Mat Zin v. Rosmawati Sharibun & Anor [2007] 1 CLJ Sya 1
(refd)

Ong Yok Chu & Anor v. Yong Teck Fong & Anor [1960] 1 LNS 84 HC
(refd)

Legislation referred to:

National Land Code, s. 380

Probate and Administration Enactments (Cap 8), s. 184

1
[2020] 1 LNS 101 Legal Network Series

CORAM

HAMID SULTAN ABU BACKER, JCA

HANIPAH FARIKULLAH, JCA
KAMALUDIN MD SAID, JCA

GROUNDS OF JUDGMENT

Introduction

[1] There were two appeals fixed before this Court. Both appeals
were filed by the Appellants and they are as follows -

i) Civil Appeal No: B-01 (NCvC) (A)- 87-02/2019 (Appeal

87); and

ii) Civil Appeal No: B-01 (NCvC) (A)- 91-02/2019 (Appeal

91)

[2] Appeals 87 and 91 are the Appellants’ appeal against the

dismissal of the Appellants’ main suits i.e. Originating
Summons No: BA-24 NCvC-305-03/2018 (“OS 305”) and
Originating Summons No: BA-24 NCvC-439-04/2018 (“OS
439”) against the First Respondent, Pejabat Tanah & Daerah
Hulu Langat (“PTD”) by the learned judge on 28.1.2019.

[3] In OS 305, the Appellants applied for orders, among others, a

declaration that the Government Gazette and official search
which was issued by the First Respondent and Court’s order in
Originating Summons No: BA-24-1371-12/2016 (“OS 1371”)
which stated that Masri Bin Khatib was the administrator in
Form H of the Land Acquisition Act 1960 is false and
inaccurate.

2
[2020] 1 LNS 101 Legal Network Series

[4] In OS 439, the Appellants prayed for orders including

declaration that Masri Bin Khatib is the owner of the land,
amendment made by the First Respondent on the document title
of the land is null, void and ultra vires.

[5] By way of an Order dated 7.1.2019, the High Court had allowed
the Second and Third Respondents to intervene as Second and
Third Defendants in the OS 439.

[6] At the High Court, the learned judge had acknowledged that
both OS 305 and OS 439 were filed for the same purpose related
to the land acquisition and award which has to be deposited to
the Court through Court’s order in Originating Summons No.
BA-24-64-01/2016 (“OS 64”). Therefore, both OS 305 and OS
439 were heard together. The extracts from the grounds of
judgment are as follow:-

“[3] Oleh kerana kedua-dua Saman Pemula tersebut melibatkan

perkara pokok yang sama, iaitu tuntutan wang pampasan
pengambilan tanah yang disimpan di mahkamah, maka kedua-
duanya boleh didengar dan diputuskan serentak.

[9] SP305 dan SP439 difailkan di atas perkara dan tujuan yang
sama. Kedua-duanya berhubung dengan pemilikan tanah
tersebut dan wang pampasan yang didepositkan ke dalam akaun
mahkamah melalui SP64.”

[7] There is a single grounds of judgment for both OS 305 and OS

439 which is at pages 13 to 27 of Rekod Rayuan Bahagian A &
B (Jilid 1).

[8] The trial at the High Court was by way of affidavits evidence.
The Appellants’ Affidavit in Support of OS 439 was affirmed by
Nazaruddin Bin Mohd Shariff @ Masari on 16.4.2018 and the

3
[2020] 1 LNS 101 Legal Network Series

Affidavit in Reply by the Second and Third Respondents was

affirmed by Mohd Fowzi Bin Abdul Hamid on 17.1.2019.

[9] Having analysed the affidavits evidence before the Court and
heard submissions from the Appellants and the Respondents
during the trial, the learned judge dismissed the Appellants’ OS
305 and OS 439 with Costs of RM5,000.00 to be paid to the
First Respondent and RM2,500.00 to be paid to the Second and
Third Respondents subject to allocatur fee.

The Appeal

[10] Both Appeal 87 and Appeal 91 came before us. We had read the
records of appeal. The Appellants have set out various grounds
in their memorandum of appeal dated 22.4.2019. The Appellants
and the Respondents had made their oral submissions and also
relying on their written submissions. We had considered their
able submissions.

[11] Perusing the grounds stated in the memorandum of appeal, in

our view, the Appellants’ complaint is that the learned judge
failed to appreciate the evidence before him that shows Masri
Bin Khatib (MBK) is the registered owner of Lot 864. This is
consistent with the Appellants’ claim at the High Court in OS
439 among others for a declaration that Masri Bin Khatib is the
registered owner of Lot 864 and an order to amend the Title of
Lot 864 within 7 days to reflect the capacity of ownership of
Masri Bin Khatib as the registered owner of Lot 864 in 1/1
share.

[12] The learned judge in his grounds of judgment had stated as

follows -

4
[2020] 1 LNS 101 Legal Network Series

“Melalui SP439 pula, pihak plaintif memohon perintah untuk

mendapatkan deklarasi berikut:

1. MBK adalah pemilik tanah tersebut;

2. Catatan status MBK sebagai ‘Pentadbir’ adalah

salah, tidak berasas, curang dan bertentangan
dengan undang-undang;

3. Catatan status MBK yang sahih dan tepat tanah

tersebut adalah sebagai Pemilik Berdaftar 1/1
Bahagian;

4. Tindakan defendan pertama menukar status

pemilikan MBK daripada pemilik kepada pentadbir
tanah tersebut adalah curang, salah, tidak berasas,
bertentangan dengan undang-undang, bertentangan
dengan keadilan sejagat serta ultra vires; batal dan
tidak sah; dan

5. Tindakan defendan pertama melakukan pindaan atau

pembetulan ke atas dokumen hak milik tanah tersebut
adalah curang, salah, tidak berasas, bertentangan
dengan undang-undang, bertentangan dengan
keadilan sejagat serta ultra vires, batal dan tidak
sah”.

[13] The learned judge went on to acknowledge that the issue is

related to the order of court in OS 1371 (the order is Exhibit “NZ- 24”
at pages 647-649 of Rekod Rayuan Bahagian C (Jilid 4). He found
that part of the order which says that MBK was the registered owner
of the whole portion of the land was wrongly entered because the
respective judge Datuk Azimah Bte Omar never made such an order,
therefore, the Appellants cannot state something in the order which

5
[2020] 1 LNS 101 Legal Network Series

they had never applied for. The facts were distorted. The learned
judge also stated that the Court by letter dated 12.4.2018 (see exhibit
marked “MF-5” at page 1394 of Rekod Rayuan Bahagian C (Jilid 7)
had informed the Appellants’ solicitor about the mistake and that the
Order could not be enforced. The Appellants’ solicitor was required to
file a new Order. Extracts from the Shah Alam High Court letter dated
12.4.2018 is produced in verbatim as follows:-

“2. Mahkamah melalui klarifikasi yang diadakan pada

10.4.2018 dengan kehadiran Tuan Mohd Abdul Hakim bin
Mohd Ali dari Kamar Penasihat Undang-Undang dan
peguamcara Plaitnif tidak hadir, telah menjelaskan bahawa
Perintah bertarikh 25.4.2017 bagi tindakan ini yang telah
dimeteraikan oleh Mahkamah pada 7.6.2017 [Lampiran 12]
telah terkhilaf diluluskan dan TIDAK LAGI BOLEH
DIGUNAPAKAI kerana tidak menggambarkan relief sebenar
yang telah dibenarkan.

3. Ini adalah kerana, relief Pertama yang dinyatakan di dalam

Lampiran 12, iaitu bahawa “Arwah Masri Bin Khatib
adalah Pemilik Berdaftar 1/1 Bahagian atas Hartanah No.
Hakmilk: GM 2242, Lot 864 Sungai Sub Mukim Hulu Langat
Daerah Hulu Langat Selangor Darul Ehsan (Hartanah
tersebut) tidak pernah diberikan oleh YA Datuk Azimah
Binti Omar sewaktu memberikan keputusan pada 25.4.2017.

4. Mahkamah telah sebelum ini memaklumkan kepada

peguamcara Plaintif iaitu En. Ismail Bin Yahya untuk
memfailkan Deraf perintah yang baru namun sehingga ke
hari ini tiada tindakan susulan diambil.

5. Berikutan ini, Pihak Mahkamah dengan ini memberikan

tempoh 7 hari dari tarikh surat ini untuk peguamcara
Plaintif memfailkan satu Deraf Perintah yang baru bagi

6
[2020] 1 LNS 101 Legal Network Series

mencerminkan Perintah sebenar yang diberikan pada

24.4.2017 yang mana kegagalan peguamcara Plaintif untuk
berbuat demikian pihak Defendan melalui A. 42 k. 10 (4)
Kaedah-kaedah Mahkamah 2012 boleh mengambil tindakan
susulan untuk memfailkan Deraf Perintah tersebut.”

[14] Further, the learned judge found that the Appellants’ solicitor
had used OS 1371 Order to support their claim in OS 305. In
other words, if the above instructions were followed or later
acknowledged by the Appellants’ solicitor after filing OS 305 on
21.3.2018, the declaration sought to declare MBK as the
registered owner of Lot 864 would not arise. In effect the OS
305 is supported by the incorrect Order which is yet to be
corrected as directed by the Court.

[15] The learned judge also found that in OS 439, though it never
directly mentioned about the said OS 1371 Order, but the fact
remains that the declaration sought is the same i.e. for
declaration that MBK is the registered owner of Lot 864. In
other words, had the Appellants’ solicitor followed or
appreciated the Court’s letter dated 12.4.2018 (Exhibit “MF-5”),
the declaration sought is also non-starter or the issue of res
judicata as grounded by the Appellants does not arise because
when OS 439 was filed on 19.4.2018 the Appellants would have
knowledge or known that the OS 1371 Order contains mistake
that must be corrected.

[16] We investigated this matter and found the learned judge did not
make a wrong finding over this matter.

[17] Firstly, paragraph 1 of the said OS 1371 Order says -

“1. Arwah Masri Bin Khatib adalah Pemilik Berdaftar 1/1

Bahagian atas Hartanah No. Hak Milik, GM 2242, Lot

7
[2020] 1 LNS 101 Legal Network Series

Sungai Sub, Mukim Hulu Langat, Daerah Hulu Langat,

Selangor Darul Ehsan (hartanah tersebut.)”

[18] Secondly, in OS 1371 (Exhibit “MF-5” at pages 1293-1298 of

Rekod Rayuan Bahagian C (Jilid 7), the declarations sought are as
follows:-

“1. Satu deklarasi bahawa dapatan “pertikaian” yang dibuat

JKPTG di dalam prosiding Sama Pemula No: 24-64-
01/2016 iaitu permohonan JKPTG untuk mendepositkan
wang pampasan milik arwah Masri Bin Khatib ke dalam
akauan Mahkamah Tinggi Shah Alam selaras dengan
butiran Borang H bertarikh 8.9.2015, adalah salah, tidak
sah, tidak berasas dan merupakan suatu skandal;

2. Suatu deklarasi bahawa dapatan “pertikaian” yang dibuat

JKPTG di dalam prosiding Sama Pemula No: 24- 64-
01/2016 iaitu permohonan JKPTG untuk mendepositkan
wang pampasan milik arwah Masri Bin Khatib ke dalam
akaun Mahkamah Tinggi Shah Alam selaras dengan
butiran Borang H bertarikh 8.9.2015, diketepikan dan/atau
dikeluarkan daripada rekod Mahkamah;

3. Suatu deklarasi bahawa sebenarnya tidak ada langsung

“pertikaian” yang wujud, bertentangan dengan dakwaan
atau dapatan JKPTG di dalam permohonan Saman Pemula
No: 24-64-01/2016 tersebut;

4. Suatu deklarasi bahawa bukti muklamad dan/atau

konklusif bagi menunjukkan wujudnya pertikaian seperti
yang didakwa JKPTG tersebut adalah dengan kewujudan
dan/atau pemfailan Borang N di bawah Seksyen 37 (1) (c)
atau (d) & Seksyen 38 yang dibaca dengan Seksyen 39
Akta Pengambilan Tanah 1960;

8
[2020] 1 LNS 101 Legal Network Series

5. Kos permohonan ini dijadikan kos di dalam kausa; dan

6. Sebarang Relif atau Perintah yang Mahkamah Yang Mulia

ini fikirkan perlu dan suaimanfaat untuk diberikan.”

[19] The declarations sought by the Appellants in OS 1371 above are

mainly to declare the disputes (“pertikaian”) brought by the
KPTG the First Respondent in OS 64 to deposit the land
compensation/award belonged to Masri Bin Khatib in Shah Alam
High Court as null and void and of no effect and ought to be set
aside.

[20] We agreed that there is no declaration sought to declare Masri

Bin Khatib as Pemilik Berdaftar 1/1 Bahagian atas Hartanah
No. Hak Milik, GM 2242, Lot Sungai Sub, Mukim Hulu Langat,
Daerah Hulu Langat, Selangor Darul Ehsan (hartanah
tersebut). Therefore, the insertion of this order in paragraph 1 of
OS 1371 Order is obviously incorrect.

[21] The finding of the learned judge is reproduced below as follows-

“10. Pihak plaintif mendakwa bahawa isu mengenai pemilikan

tanah telah selesai dengan adanya perintah mahkamah
yang diberikan melalui SP 1371. Semakan ke atas rekod
mahkamah menunjukkan adanya penyelewengan fakta yang
telah dilakukan peguam plaintif semasa memfailkan draf
perintah dan juga perintah bersih bagi SP 1371.

11. Ternyatalah, draf perintah SP 1371 tidak pernah dihantar

kepada defendan pertama dan hanya difailkan menurut
Aturan 42 kaedah 8(1) Kaedah-kaedah Mahkamah 2012
(KKM 2012). Setelah perintah bersih diperolehi dan
diserahkan, defendan pertama memohon klarifikasi dan
mahkamah telah menetapkan tarikh pada 10.4.2018 untuk

9
[2020] 1 LNS 101 Legal Network Series

klarifikasi. Malangnya, peguam plaintif tidak hadir semasa

klarifikasi diadakan walaupun telah dimaklumkan tarikh
oleh mahkamah. Peguam Persekutuan (PP) mewakili
defendan pertama hadir pada tarikh klarifikasi dan telah
memaklumkan kepada mahkamah tentang penyelewengan
yang ada pada draf perintah dan perintah bersih SP 1371
yang diperolehi plaintif.

12. Ternyatalah, makluman PP tersebut ada asas. Perenggan

pertama perintah SP 1371 telah memasukkan satu perintah
yang menyatakan MBK adalah pemilik berdaftar semua
Bahagian tanah tersebut. Ironinya, perintah tersebut tidak
pernah dipohon plaintif di dalam SP 1371 dan Hakim
berkenaan tidak pada bila-bila masa pernah memberikan
perintah tersebut. Sudah tentulah, plaintif tidak boleh
memasukkan suatu perintah yang dipohon di dalam
tuntutannya atau yang tidak diberikan oleh mahkamah.

13. Kemudiannya, mahkamah melalui satu surat Penolong

Kanan Pendaftar bertarikh 12.4.2018 (lihat Lampiran 15
SP 1371) telahpun memaklumkan kepada peguam plaintif
akan kesilapan tersebut dan memaklumkan bahawa
perintah SP 1371 tidak boleh lagi diguna pakai.
Mahkamah turut mengarahkan peguam plaintif iaitu Encik
Ismail bin Yahya supaya memfailkan satu perintah baru.
Namun begitu, ianya tidak diendahkan. Bahkan, peguam
yang sama telah menggunakan perintah mahkamah yang
terdapat penyelewengan fakta tersebut bagi menyokong
permohonan SP 305.

14. Bagi permohonan SP 439 pula, walau pun pihak plaintif

tidak secara langsung merujuk kepada perintah SP 1371,
nampaknya perintah-perintah yang dipohon pada asasnya

10
[2020] 1 LNS 101 Legal Network Series

adalah sama, iaitu meminta mahkamah mengisytiharkan

MBK sebagai pemilik tanah tersebut. Inferens yang dapat
dibuat adalah, peguam plaintif tahu perintah 1371 tidak
diperolehi secara jujur dan oleh sebab itulah, perlunya
kepada perintah baru melalui SP 439 bagi
mengisyitiharkan MBK sebagai pemilik tanah tersebut”.

[22] Based on the above facts, it was rightly said that the incorrect
Order could not be enforced or used to support the Appellants’
applications in another proceedings. It was correctly submitted
by the First Respondent that the Appellants did not come to
Court with clean hands. The case of Continental Court Sdn Bhd
v. Fan Fong Hee & Ors [2013] 1 LNS 275 was referred to which
held that:

“95. The court was also satisfied that the plaintiff did not
come to court with clean hands.

96. It is trite law that he who seeks equity must come

with clean hands. In Wong Chun Wah v. Kok Kam
Chee (P) [2008] 3 CLJ 510; [2008] 3 MLJ 176, the
Court of Appeal observed as follows at page 181
paragraphs [21] to [23]:-

“In this regard, two maxims of equity stand out

significantly. These maxims are:

(1) he who seeks equity must do equity; and

(2) he who comes to equity must come with clean

hands. Applying the first maxim, the plaintiff
who is now seeking the equitable relief of
enforcing the trust must do equity which, in
popular parlance, means being right and fair to

11
[2020] 1 LNS 101 Legal Network Series

the defendant (see eg, Snell’s Equity, Thomson

Sweet & Maxwell 2004, p. 96).

The second maxim is related to the ex turpi causa non

oritur actio of the common law. It is very similar to the
first maxim, except that the second maxim looks to the past
rather than the future. The plaintiff, as the claimant, not
only must be prepared now to do what is right and fair,
but also must show that his past record in the transaction
is clean; for ‘he who has committed iniquity... shall not
have equity’: Jones v. Lenthal [1669] 1 Ch Cas 154 and
Snell’s Equity.

In Eastern Properties Sdn Bhd v. Hampstead Corporation

Sdn Bhd [2007] 6 CLJ 538 (CA), Gopal Sri Ram JCA,
speaking for the Court of Appeal, in para 14 at p 547
explained the applicability of equitable maxims with
unrivalled clarity as follows:

It is beyond argument that equitable doctrines are

not to be dealt with in a rigid fashion. They are by
their very nature flexible and meant to be applied in
such a fashion as produces a just result on the facts
and circumstances of a given case. But there are
certain basic threads that have been woven into the
fabric of equitable doctrines through the
pronouncements in the leading cases on the subject.
One of these is that a supplicant who prays in aid
equitable assistance must himself or herself be not
guilty of equitable misconduct. This is sometimes put
in the form of the maxim: He who comes to equity
must come with clean hands. So a contract breaker

12
[2020] 1 LNS 101 Legal Network Series

cannot successfully invoke the remedy of specific

performance.”

[23] Be that as it may, the learned judge had dealt and considered the
Appellants’ OS 305 and 439. In trying to obtain the declarations
sought that Masri Bin Khatib is the Owner of the Lot 864, the
Appellants established their case by relying on the documents as
follows -

i. Grant dated 11.11.1957;

ii. Geran Mukim dated 9.5.2012 ;

iii. Carian Rasmi dated. 7.2.2013 ;

iv Warta Kerajaan Negeri Selangor dated 7.11.2013 ;

v. Judgment dated 18.5.2017 by YA Dato’ Azimah Binti

Omar; and

vi. Order dated 25.4.2017.

[24] Before going further into this matter, the facts of the case can be
seen as follows -

i. The subject matter of this dispute is a plot of land known

as GM 6017 (formerly known as GM 2242), Lot No. 864,
Mukim Hulu Langat, District Hulu Langat in the State of
Selangor (“Lot 864”).

ii. It is an undisputed fact that originally Lot 864 was

registered under Sultan Palembang @ Khatib Besar Bin
Raja Acheh @ Khatib Besar bin Raja Acheh (hereinafter
referred to as Sultan Palembang).

13
[2020] 1 LNS 101 Legal Network Series

iii. At all material times and upon the death of Sultan

Palembang in or around 1942, Sultan Palembang had left
behind two biological sons, Kamin Bin Khatib and Masri
Bin Khatib.

iv. Kamin Bin Khatib died in the year 1948 and Masri Bin
Khatib died on 23.3.1988.

v. The disputed subject matter Lot 864 had never been passed
down intervivos and/or bequeathed by will to either of the
Sultan Palembang’s sons.

vi. Therefore upon the demise of Sultan Palembang, Kamin

Bin Khatib and Masri Bin Khatib are joint beneficiaries in
equal shares (1/2) to the Estate of Sultan Palembang.

vii. At all material times upon the death of Sultan of

Palembang, Masri Bin Khatib was registered as the
Administrator to Lot 864.

viii. Both the Appellants are the Joint Administrators of the

estate of Masri Bin Khatib.

ix. The Second and Third Respondents are the grandsons of

Kamin Bin Khatib and are also the Joint Administrators
and the beneficiaries of the Estate of Kamin Bin Khatib.

[25] Based on the above facts, it is an undisputed that the two

biological sons, Kamin Bin Khatib and Masri Bin Khatib are
joint beneficiaries in equal shares (1/2) to the Estate of Sultan
Palembang upon the demise of Sultan Palembang. This prompted
us to inquire from the Appellants whether there is any Faraid
Certificate granted in respect of the property since at the
material times Masri Bin Khatib was and still is the
Administrator of Lot 864.

14
[2020] 1 LNS 101 Legal Network Series

[26] This Court took judicial notice that if the deceased was a
Muslim, the rightful beneficiaries as stated under faraid are the
father, mother, wife, husband, sons, daughters, etc. In Arabic,
the Islamic law of succession is known as ‘al-faraid’, which
literally means fixed portions. Technically, the term denotes the
quantum of shares allotted to the legal heirs as determined by
the Shariah.

[27] The definition of Faraid is the determination of the rights and

the heirs’ portion of a deceased’s inheritance is based on the
provisions of the Sharia Laws. The Faraid Certificate is an
official declaration containing the description regarding the
valuation of the deceased’s inheritance and the entitled heirs
who are Muslim as well as their entitled parts of the inheritance
after the faraid calculations are verified and issued by the Court
by the powers bestowed by the law. After the death of the
deceased, immediate actions should be taken to manage the
deceased’s inheritance. Procrastination will cause the claims and
distribution of the estate to be further delayed, thereby
impacting the deceased’s heirs, especially children (if any) who
need the inheritance to continue their daily sustenance. The best
approach that should be taken before making an official
application via the provisions of the law is to apply for the
Faraid Certificate, the deceased’s heirs must first fulfil certain
obligations according to the Islamic law and execute them in
sequence. These obligations include the burial management cost,
settlement of debt, division of Husband-Wife Common Property,
completion of will, and finally the distribution of estate to the
entitled heirs. Matters such as pawning, sales claims, right
restrictions of land interests and others must be solved before
the distribution of estate is initiated. The Faraid Certificate can
minimize the negative complications surrounding the

15
[2020] 1 LNS 101 Legal Network Series

distribution of estate from fraud or hiding from the entitled

heirs, manipulation between heirs and their relatives as the Certificate
contains details of the heirs and the parts to be received which are
valid by law. (See: My GOV, Managing Family Institution-
https://www.malaysia.gov.my/portal/content/27709)

[28] The Appellants’ counsel informed us that there is no Faraid

Certificate in this case, however insisted that Masri Bin Khatib
is the owner of the said land based on the contemporaneous
documents established by them in Rekod Rayuan Bahagian C
(Jilid 7) which shows Masri Bin Khatib is the registered owner
of Lot 864.

[29] The Respondents’s case is that Masri Bin Khatib was never an
owner of the said land but was the Administrator of the said
land.

[30] The learned judge at paragraph 15 of judgement had considered

the records presented before him which show as follows:

i. A copy of EMR 4984 dated 11.11.1957 shows that Masri

Bin Khatib was registered as Administrator to the whole
portion of the said land which before that owned by Sultan
Palembang @ Haji Ismail Bin Raja Acheh;

ii. The status of Masri Bin Khatib as Administrator also

shown from the Letter of Administration dated 11.11.1957;

iii. During data migration process in the Hulu Langat Land

Office from the old manual system of EMR to the
computerise system (SPTB) in 2013 had resulted in Masri
Bin Khatib’s status in the Title to be amended from Owner
to administrator;

16
[2020] 1 LNS 101 Legal Network Series

iv. During the land acquisition inquiry, it was discovered that

there is dispute on ownership of the said land between two
different families from Sultan Palembang generation
claiming interest over the said land. The First Respondent
decided to deposit the land acquisition award into Court
until the dispute is resolved.

[31] Based of the above facts, the learned judge at paragraph 16 of

his judgment found that there is in fact a dispute over the said
land which must be firstly resolved. Any party who claim
interest and ownership must file an action for the Court to
resolve the dispute over the said land. Further, the learned judge
was of the view that the Appellants by taking a short cut by
filing OS 305 and OS 439 will not resolve the ownership dispute
over the said land. It is also within the learned judge’s
knowledge from the record that the Second and Third
Respondents had filed a Writ of Summons No: BA-22 NCvC-
327-07/2018 (Suit 327) for the Court to determine the issue of
ownership of the said land and an order to set aside OS 1371
Order on ground that it was obtain by fraud, wrong and
misconceived.

[32] Based on the reasons stated above, the learned judge made his
finding that the issue of ownership of the said land is still a live
issue which must be finally determined by the Court. The
learned judge agreed that the decision taken by the First
Respondent to deposit the land acquisition award into Court via
OS 64 is correct. The application is supported by the Affidavit
in Support affirmed by Penolong Pentadbir Tanah Daerah Hulu
Langat, Jurita Binti Juhari on 19.7.2016 (see Exhibit “NZ-13” at
pages 290-293 of Rekod Rayuan Bahagian C (Jilid 2)). The
Appellants’ OS 305 and OS 439 was held to be without basis for

17
[2020] 1 LNS 101 Legal Network Series

the Court to consider and dismissed the Appellants’ OS 305 and

OS 439.

[33] Perusal of the above documents we confirmed that there is a

Grant of Letters of Administration dated 11.11.1957 granted
under Section 184 of the Probate and Administration Enactments
(Cap 8) at the material time to Masri Bin Khatib as the
Administrator of the estates of the deceased Sultan Palembang
(see Exhibit “MF-2” at 1214-1217). We believed that the status
of Masri Bin Khatib Administrator cannot be suddenly changed
to be owner without any explanation. The explanation as stated
by the learned judge is that during data migration process in the
Hulu Langat Land Office from the old manual system of EMR to
the computerise system (SPTB) in 2013 had resulted in Masri
Bin Khatib’s status in the Title to be amended from owner to
administrator. This was admitted by the First Respondent/Hulu
Langat Land Office that it was during the migration of the
manual system to the ‘Sistem Pendaftaran Tanah Berkomputer’
that the name Masri Bin Khatib was wrongly keyed into the
computer data system as the owner to Lot 864 hence the change
of capacity from administrator to owner. See also the written
submission of the First Respondent.

[34] This error was thereafter corrected by the First Respondent

where the necessary amendment was made pursuant to and in
consistent with Section 380 of the National Land Code to correct
the original capacity of Masri Bin Khatib as an Administrator to
Lot 864 (see Exhibit “NZ-6 at page 213 of the Rekod Rayuan
Bahagian C (Jilid 2).

[35] The Federal Court case of Hasan Bin Seman & Ors v. Jusoh Bin
Awang Chik [1982] 1 MLJ 66 at Pages 67 held that :-

18
[2020] 1 LNS 101 Legal Network Series

“In the National Land Code indefeasibility and correction of

error are two independent provisions existing side by side. Each
has its own sphere and scope of operation. The provision for
correction of error is not even treated by the Code as an
exception to indefeasibility provision. Thus correction of an
error can never be a violation of the indefeasibility principle
and must remain outside the scope of the indefeasibility
principle.”

[36] Even if this is not the case, we did enquire from the Appellants
as alluded to earlier whether there is Faraid Certificate granted
to Masri Bin Khatib as the sole heir and beneficiary to the estate
of Sultan Palembang. There is no such evidence before us.
Whether Masri Bin Khatib is the only lawful heir to Sultan
Palembang is to be determined by the Syariah Court. As such, it
would be inappropriate for this court to issue any such
declaratory order. Without the Faraid Certificate which we
insisted, Grant of Letters of Administration dated 11.11.1957
validly shows that Masri Bin Khatib is the Administrator of the
property of his deceased father Sultan Palembang Bin Raja
Acheh @ Haji Ismail Bin Raja Acheh who died in 1942 as stated
in the said Letters of Administration and not the owner of the
property.

[37] In Latifah Mat Zin v. Rosmawati Sharibun & Anor [2007] 1 CLJ
Sya 1; [2007] 5 MLJ 119, at paragraph 56, it was said amongst
others that when the letter of administration is obtained, the
administrator is appointed, and in case of an estate of a muslim,
the administrator will obtain a ‘Sijil Faraid ‘ from the Shariah
Court which state who are the beneficiaries and their respective
shares, in accordance with Islamic Law. If the estate consists of
immovable property, another application is made to the civil
High Court for a vesting order. All that the civil High Court

19
[2020] 1 LNS 101 Legal Network Series

does in such an application is that, being satisfied with all

procedural requirements, the civil High Court makes a vesting
order in accordance with the Sijil Faraid.

[38] It is reiterated that the Faraid Certificate can minimize the

negative complications surrounding the distribution of estate
from fraud or hiding from the entitled heirs, manipulation
between heirs and their relatives as the Certificate contains
details of the heirs and the parts to be received which are valid
by law.

[39] Based on the reasons stated above, the learned judge made his
finding that the issue of ownership of the said land is still a live
issue which must be finally determined by the Court. It is also
within the learned judge’s knowledge from the record that the
Second and Third Respondents had filed Suit 327 (see Exhibit
“MF-3” at pages 1222- 1282 of Rekod Rayuan Bahagian C (jilid
7) for the Court to determine the issue of ownership of the said
land and an order to set aside OS 1371 Order on ground that it
was obtain by fraud, wrong and misconceived.

[40] In fact, this Court in an appeal by an Order dated 17.10.2018

had allowed the Second Respondent’s appeal in Civil Appeal
No: B-02 (A)-1164-06/2017 to set aside the decison of the High
Court Shah Alam dated 18.5.2017 in the Appellants’s
Originating Summons No: BA-24-916-09/2016 (OS 916). The
Court also ordered that the caveat entered by the Second
Respondent dated 2.3.2016 in the said land be maintained until
the dispute is determined by the High Court in Shah Alam Suit
327. Therefore, we agreed with the Respondents that the
Appellants’ reliance on OS 916 is deceitful and a blatant attempt
to mislead the Court as the Appellants’ solicitors are well aware
that in the Court of Appeal had set aside that Judgment in OS

20
[2020] 1 LNS 101 Legal Network Series

916 on 17.10.2018 (Exhibit “MF-4” at pages 1286-1289 of

Rekod Rayuan Bahagian C (Jilid 7).

[41] We found that the learned judge’s finding is correct. Based on

the above reasons, we also believed that there are serious
dispute of facts and conflicting contemporaneous documents
from both the Appellants and the Second and Third Respondents
pertaining to the ownership of Lot 864 that requires to be
ventilated in a full trial. As such this issue should not be
decided on the basis of affidavit evidence alone and an
originating summons is not the proper mode to dispose this issue
as seen in the case of Foon Seong v. Chan San Choon (F) [1947]
1 MLJ 85 [Tab 2 of RBOA, Page 86] where the learned Bostock-
Hill J held that :-

“Moreover the question at issue is a question of fact and

not of law and will have to be determined in Open Court
and is not suitable for determination by the procedure of an
Originating Summons.”

[42] In the case of Ong Yok Chu & Anor v. Yong Teck Fong & Anor
[1960]1 MLJ 292, at pg. 293], Ismail Khan J held that:

“This is purely a question of fact and, in my opinion, it would

be contrary to all decided authorities to try disputed issues of
fact on an originating summons - see Foong Seong v. Chan
San Choon [1947] MLJ 85; In Re Powers (1885) 30 Ch D 291
296; Dowse v. Gordon [1891] AC 202 ... “

[43] In view of the various dispute of facts and contemporaneous

documents from parties herein, a Writ action that the Second
and Third Respondents had filed vide Suit 327 is the most
appropriate and proper mode of proceeding to determine the
issue of ownership in Lot 864.

21
[2020] 1 LNS 101 Legal Network Series

[44] The learned judge had correctly dismissed both OS 439 and OS
305 We were satisfied that there is no appealable error in the
judgement for this Court to interfere. The Appellants’ appeal is
bereft of any merit.

Decision

[45] It is our unanimous decision that the Appellants’ appeal is

dismissed with Costs of RM 5,000.00 for each set of solicitors
subject to allocatur.

Dated: 4 FEBRUARY 2020

(KAMALUDIN MD SAID)
Judge
Court Of Appeal Malaysia
Putrajaya

COUNSEL:

For the appellants - Afifi Ahmad, Ismail Yahya & Mohd Fakhzan
Mohd Noor; M/s Fakhzan Azlina & Associates

For the 1 st respondent - Siti Fatimah Talib; Legal Advisor Office,

District and Land Officer Of Hulu Langat

For the 2 nd & 3 rd respondents - Manpal Singh Sachdev, Ph Cheah

& Nor Afifah; M/s Manjit Singh Sachdev, Mohammad Radzi & Pts

22