LAND

HB CHEE
PUPIL IN CHAM BER

TETUAN CHRIS & PART NERS

 SPECIAL THANKS

Ms Christy Lim Ying Ying

Mr Parthiban & Team Ms Lishani Ravindran Mr Ashok Linggam
Mr Chris Teh
T.Y Lim & Co (MUAR) Mr Gan Hsien Yang
J.A Nathan & Co (MUAR)
Mr Choong Chin Yang (KLUANG)
KA RAMU VASANTHI & ASSOCIATES (MELAKA)
En. Sheikh Ikhzan Sheikh Salleh
Prof Dato Dr N.K.S. Tharmaseelan
Mr Weera Soon Jin Xue (Brainy Law) Student Counsel
Mr Reno Nga (Law Note)
Mr Tan Jian En
Mr Zhun Jie (Law Notes Library)
Teaching faculty from BAC, ATC, United Law Academy
Johore State Bar / Majlis Peguam Malaysia
DISCLAIMERS
1. PRO BONO CLASS
2. PUPIL IN CHAMBER (NOT LAWYER YET)
3. THE CLASS IS NOT AIMED TO COVER ALL AREAS OF LAWS
4. THE ACCURACY OF THE INFORMATION COULD NOT BE GUARANTEED
5. NO CONFLICT OF INTEREST WITH ANY PARTIES PROVIDING SIMILAR CLASS
6. FEEDBACK IS VERY MUCH WELCOME
TIME RUSHING

Q1 : 9.15 – 9.50am (35min)

Q2 : 9.50 – 10.25am (35min)

Q3 : 10.25 – 11.00am (35min)

Q4 : 11.00am – 11.35am (35min)
Q5 : 11.35am – 12.10am (35min)

5 minutes left : check ID + correct gross mistake

ZOOM IN
Types of Title
Equity issue in
& Disposal of Indefeasibility
Land Law
State Land

Housing
Restraint of
Dealings Developer
Dealings
issue
 Q5 PP 2021
Story Flow Ariko

CHARGE (EQUITABLE)
Eazi Bank : RM500k loan
IDT given to Cekap
Loan released on 10.5.2020

Ariko defaulted
Eazi Bank  OFS
15.9.2020
10.5.2020
Misra : Private Caveat
X – Quit rent notice
2% Deposit
CEKAP
On behalf Charge NOT registered
1.6.2020 20.10.2020
of Eazi Bank PO entered by X due to PO/PC
Soda Supply
OUTLINE Q5 PP 2021:
A charge is a transaction where the registered proprietor of alienated land, Ariko conveys it as security
to Eazi Bank for the repayment of a loan.
As a consequence of Cekap’s failure to registered the charge timely with Land Registry pursuant to s243
NLC, Eazi Bank is holding the interest of Ariko’s land on equitable charge; Mahadevan v Manilal & Sons.

On the issue of whether equitable chargee could proceed to order for sale the court took two different
views below:
1. Malayan Banking v Zahari Ahmad : an equitable charge has the right of sale
2. Oriental Bank v Chup Seng Restaurant : NLC clearly required charge to be registered (s243 NLC) in
its prescribed form before charge can enforce the right of foreclosure under NLC
In RELIANCE to Zahari Ahmad (supra), Eazi Bank may proceed with order for sale as equitable charge.
But, Eazi Bank must solve the following issues:
 OUTLINE Q5 PP 2021:
Quit rent notice : Cekap already acquired the notice, it would be best for Cekap to tender the quit rent notice to
Land Registry for their acknowledgement to remove the tenancy endorsement
Prohibitory order :
It is well noted that PO shall have a lifespan of 6 months from the date of issuance ,O47r6 ROC 2012, s338(1) NLC
(1.6.2020 -1.12.2020). At the material time, the PO is still valid.
Soda Supply was merely the judgement creditor of Ariko, hence, the said Prohibitory Order does not create any
interest in the land. It does not prohibit the issuance of certificate of sale upon the completion of and order for
sale, s336(2) NLC Karuppiah Chettiar v Subramaniam
Even if it does, the court will evaluate the competing interest by upholding “First In First Out”rule. Apparently,
Eazi Bank had created its interest via “equitable charge”on Ariko’s land on 10.5.2020 and Soda Supply had entered
PO on 1.6.2020 . Therefore, Eazi Bank will have priority over Soda Supply in proceeding with Order For Sale;
Standard Chartered Bank v Yap Sing Yoke
It would be expected that Soda Supply may intervene into the charge action O83 ROC 2012 / order for sale taken
by Eazi Bank.
OUTLINE Q5 PP 2021:
Private Caveat:
The private caveat entered by Misra has the effect of prohibit registration, endorsement or entry on
the register document of title; s322 NLC, Macon Engineering v Goh Hooi Yin. In this event, the
existence of private caveat may affect the transfer of title for Ariko’s land after the order for sale.
Since Misra refused to remove private caveat pursuant to S325 NLC, Eazi Bank is advised that there
are another two ways to remove the private caveat:
1. Approach Ariko and ask his favour to remove the private caveat by virtue of S326(1) NLC. Via this
method, Ariko merely need to show to the registrar that he is the registered proprietor of the land by
filling Form 19H; Subsequently, the registrar need to serve a notice of intended removal in Form 19C
to Misra. After 2 months upon the service of the notice, the private caveat shall be automatically
lapsed (s326(2)NLC) unless Misra could extend the time by satisfying three stages test; Luggage
Distributors
2. Remove private caveat by court order, s327 NLC. As an aggrieved party that is affected by the
private caveat, Eazi Bank can apply to court for its removal by ex-parte (s327(1) NCL) by OS +
Affidavit; Tan See Hock v Development & Commercial Bank . Under s327(2) NLC, the Registrar upon
serving with the court order will make the removal of private caveat entered by Misra
 OUTLINE Q5 PP 2021:
Private Caveat:
After Ariko had made the application of removal of private caveat, the burden of proof will shift to
Misra. In which, she needs to established 3 stages tests according to Luggage Distributors v Tan Hor
Teng
a. Whether Misra has a caveatable interest, s323 NLC
b. Whether Misra has a serious question to be tried in her affidavit in support.
c. The balance of convenience is in favour of the private caveat to be maintained.

It is submitted that Misra would likely to fail in the first stage aforesaid, as she was merely asking for
the refund of her ernest deposit. Obviously, Misra is not claiming any interest / rights in the land
itself; This is not a caveatable interest ; EM Buxton v Packaging Specialist
OUTLINE Q5 PP 2021:
Conclusion
After the aforesaid issues had been resolved, Eazi Bank is advised to proceed with
order for sale (for Registry Title, to be applied in High Court, s256 NLC and O83 ROC
2012; for Land Office Title to be applied in Land Administrator, s260 NLC).
Without any valid cause to the contrary (Low Lee Lian v Ban Hin Lee Bank), it is likely
that the order for sale shall go through.
 Q6 PP 2021 5 times auctions done
Sale by private treaty by Kawan : RM900k

Tolo has a property in Bertam Additional 10% interest

OS : 18.4.2019  GRANTED ORDER.
O83 ROC 2012
3rd party charge : Ringgit Bank SERVICE : 20.4.2019
Suji wishes to RM700k released on 2.5.2010
renovate his house 5% p.a
but no money
Form 16E : RM658k + interest
Within 7 days to Suji Only
Suji defaulted ?WHEN

Ringgit Bank  LOD to Suji & Tolo

OUTLINE Q6a PP 2021:
In this problem scenario, Tolo is the chargor of his property in Bertam, Ringgit Bank is the chargee and
Suji is the borrower. There is a third party charge over the said property.
Ringgit Bank had commenced a charge action / order for sale pursuant to s256 NLC / O83 ROC 2012
against the Tolo’s property in the event of default payment on part of Suji.
To challenge the order for sale, Suji would bear the burden to established the “causes to contrary” as
laid down in the case “Low Lee Lian v Ban Hin Lee Bank”, namely:
1. Failure to meet the condition precedent (ie: statutory notice, O83)
2. Exceptions of indefeasibility S340 NLC
3. Inequitable/Unlawful to grant order

The answer is structured in stepwise approach as follow:

OUTLINE Q6a PP 2021:
Issues With Statutory Notice (s254NLC)
Ringgit Bank had issued the wrong notice in Form 16E (sums payable on demand) instead of Form
16D which is the accurate form for default of payment (breach in question) on part of Suji, s254(1)(a)
NLC. Jacob v OCBC had laid down that wrong form is a mere technical irregularity that could be
cured, so long it does not mislead the charger.

In the said statutory notice, there are other defects :

a. The duration requiring it to be remedied must be at least one month of the date notice is
served, s254(1)(b) NLC. On the fact, Suji was given only 7 days, s s254(1)(b) NLC is not adhered
to.
b. The notice was given to Suji who is borrower, NOT Tolo (the chargor). Therefore, s254NLC was
not compliant with.
OUTLINE Q6a PP 2021:
Issues With Order 83 ROC 2012
The hearing was fixed on 18.4.2019 and OS+Affidavit was served on the Suji (defendant) on
20.4.2019. There was a clear breach of O.83r2(2) ROC 2012 which warrant the cause papers to be
served on Suji at least 4 clear days before the hearing. Noncompliance to the requirement of O83
ROC 2012 amounts to a cause to the contrary, Perwira Habib Bank v Lum Choon Realty

Penalty Interest
The facts are silent on the issuance of any prior notice in regard to penalty interest had been given to
Suji (BSN v Fawanis).
Largely depending on the careful construction of the loan agreement (Bank Policy clause), the
imposition of penalty interest of 10% may amount to a cause to contrary, Perwira Affin Bank v Ng
Realty. In some instance, the court may held such additional interest is not a cause to contrary, if it
does not prejudice the defendant, Alliance Finance v Kemas Perkasa.
OUTLINE Q6a PP 2021:
Issues with sale by private treaty
It is suggested that Kawan (a friend of Tolo) was keen to purchase the said property at RM900,000.
The court took different approaches in dealing with the issues of sale by private treaty:
Chartered Bank v Packiri Maideen : Private treaty allowed so long before proceedings have
commenced
United Malayan Banking v Chong Bun Sun : Private treaty is not allowed after an order for sale by
public auction is made
Taking the view of UMBC v Chong Bun Sun, there was no recognizable legal issue here.
Conclusion
Based on the facts that there are noncompliance to statutory notice and O 83 ROC 2012, it is
concluded that there are causes to the contrary (CIMB v Sivadevi), s256(3) NLC. Therefore, Suji would
likely to be successful in his claims to challenge the Order For Sale.
OUTLINE Q6b PP 2021:
It is trite law that the court would not allow an Order For Sale provided the causes to the
contrary laid down by “Low Lee Lian v Ban Hin Lee Bank” are satisfied, ie:
1. There is failure of chargee to meet the condition precedents (statutory notice, O83 ROC)
2. There are exceptions under indefeasibility S340 NLC
3. The OFS is contrary to rule of law / equity

In regards that Ringgit Bank failed to sell the property in 5 unsuccessful auction, this matter
does not fall in the causes to contrary aforesaid. National Land Code is silent on the maximal
number / time of order for sale that could be held.
Therefore, Suji could not object based on his opinion.
Q7 PP 2021
Issues:
Kiko + Run Developer  10 units double storey houses  licenses  Kiko terminated JVA
Rajin obtained POA from Kiko  take over the projects ? Does it include the license – likely NOT

Allegations:
Is Rajin  ? housing developers, ? License
SPA  ? similar to NEW ZEALAND, issue of contracting out
Whether Rajin is binding to SPA  can terminate?  can simply sell to other new buyer
Q7 PP 2021
OUTLINE Q7a PP 2021:
To advise Rajin, reference is made to Housing Development (Control & Licensing) Act 1966 (“HDA”),
and Housing Development (Control & Licensing) Regulations 1989 (“HDR”).
S3 HDA provides that:
“housing development” means to develop or construct or cause to be constructed in any manner
whatsoever more than four units of housing accommodation and includes the collection of moneys
or the carrying on of any building operations for the purpose of erecting housing accommodation in,
on, over or under any land; or the sale of more than four lots of land or building lots with the view of
constructing more than four units of housing accommodation;
“housing developer” means any person, body of persons, company, firm or society (by whatever
name described), who or which engages in or carries on or undertakes or causes to be undertaken a
housing development, and in a case where the housing developer is under liquidation, includes a
person or body appointed by a court of competent jurisdiction to be the provisional liquidator or
liquidator for the housing developer;
OUTLINE Q7a PP 2021:
According to the facts given, Rajin was involved in the construction of 10 units of
double storey house, by virtue of s3 HDA, she is working on a housing
development (>4 houses) and she is deemed to be the house developer under the
same provision
In the case of City Investment v Koperasi Serbaguna Cuepacs, the Federal Court held
that “any attempt by any party (especially the developer) to contract outside the Act
is clearly an open defiance of the Housing Development legislation. The protection
afforded under the HDA is “ not merely a private right but a matter of public interest
which Parliament has intended to protect from being bargained away or renounced
in advance by an individual purchaser”
Therefore, Rajin’s first allegation that she is not a house developer is rebutted. Rajin
must strictly comply with all the legal provisions in both HDA and HDR.
OUTLINE Q7a PP 2021:
Secondly, Rajin was building double storey house ( land unit ). Pursuant to Regulation 11 of HDR, it is provided that every
contract of sale for the sale and purchase of a housing accommodation together with the subdivisional portion of land
appurtenant thereto shall be in the form prescribed in Schedule G. Rajin had breached Reg 11 HDR by using a SPA similar to
the one used by her lawyers in New Zealand; Loh Tina v Kemuning Setia Sdn Bhd

The wrong format of SPA would not render the contract of sale between Rajin and her house purchasers to be null and void,
as it is merely a mistake as to Malaysia law (s22 CA 1950); Audrey Gertrude de Souza v Sunway D’mont Kiara Sdn Bhd

Rajin goes on by saying that she could terminate the SPA should the purchasers raised an issue. It is trite law that HDA and
HDR are formulated to protect house purchasers. Reference is made to SEA Housing Corporation v Lee Poh Choo, in the
event of contracting outside Schedule G of HDR, the said contract must be in favour to house purchasers.

Therefore, Rajin was wrong in the position of law to claim that she could terminate the SPA and proceed to sell the unit to
any other interested new purchaser.
OUTLINE Q7b PP 2021:
OUTLINE Q7b PP 2021:
On the fact, it was Run Developer that obtained the license to construct the house under the act.
Therefore, Rajin might have infringed s5 HDA.
As provided in s18 HDA, Rajin shall be guilty of an offence and shall, on conviction, be liable to a fine
which shall not be less than two hundred and fifty thousand ringgit but which shall not exceed five
hundred thousand ringgit or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years or to both.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Since Rajin had not drafted the SPA in compliance to reg 11 HDR (Schedule G), she is likely to be
subjected to Reg 13(1) HDR which provides 1) Any person who contravenes any of the provisions of
these Regulations shall be guilty of an offence and shall be liable on conviction to a fine not exceeding
five thousand ringgit or to a term of imprisonment not exceeding three years or to both.
PYQ 2022
Q5 PP 2022
Arif + Lily  SPA executed Arif entered a Private Caveat
Rick 10% deposit - Cannot pay
90 days balance price - Refused to remove PC

Registrar Caveat
Registrar refused to remove
- Income tax not paid
Q5 PP 2022
OUTLINE 5a PP 2022:
Arif had entered a private caveat on Rick’s house in Seremban. Thus, Rick is the caveatee and Arif is
the caveator.
To determine whether Rick could successfully remove the private caveat, it is on the burden of Arif to
satisfy the three stages test laid down in Luggage Distributors v Tan Hor Teng
1. Whether Arif has a caveatable interest, s323 NLC
2. Whether Arif has a serious question to be tried in her affidavit in support.
3. The balance of convenience is in favour of the private caveat to be maintained.
Since Rick had executed the SPA with both Arif & Lily, it could be saying that Arif could have
caveatable interest (Macon Engineering v Goh Hooi Yin).
However, further details reveal that Arif was breaching the fundamental term of the SPA by his
failure to secure a bank loan and pay the balance price within 90 days. Thus, it led to valid termination
of the SPA. Drawing a similar analogy from the case of Chia See Yin & Ors v Yeoh Kooi Imm, it is held
that Arif would not have any caveatable interest, and would fail in the 1st stage of the test aforesaid.
OUTLINE 5a PP 2022 :
Rick is registered proprietor of the house; he would have 2 options :
1. Removal of private caveat by Registrar pursuant to s326 NLC
o Rick should apply in Form 19 to the Registrar with prescribed fee (s326(1) NCL)
o Upon receival of application, the Registrar will serve a notice of intended removal in Form 19C to
Arif (s326(1A) NLC). The service is provided in S326(1AA) NLC.
o Private Caveat shall be removed after 2 months after the service of notice unless Arif, the
caveator applies to court for extension of time, s326(2) NLC. Arif would not be successful as he
could not satisfy the three stages test as discussed earlier.

2. Removal of private caveat by the court pursuant to s327 NLC

o Alternatively, Rick himself as the registered proprietor is the aggrieved person who was badly
affected by the entry of private caveat (Eng Mee Yong v V.Letchumanan).
o Rick could apply to court for removal by OS + Affidavit in support. Subsequently, the burden shall
shift to Arif to satisfy the three stages test

In conclusion, it is submitted that Rick would be successful in removing the private caveat
Q5 PP 2022
OUTLINE 5b PP 2022 :
Lily is the co-buyer of Rick’s house who entered SPA together with Arif and the said SPA was
validly terminated by Rick. It is likely that she is intended to enter the private caveat on the
same land and same ground similar to Arif.

Reference is made to s329(2) NLC, where the court has ordered the removal of private
caveat under s327 or refused an extension of time under s326(2) NLC, or where Registrar
had removed the caveat under s326(3) NLC, the Registrar shall not entertain any application
for entry of a further caveat if it is based on the like claim as that on which the former one was
based. The principle laid down in S329(2) NLC was upheld in the case of Damodaran v
Vasudeva.

Therefore, Lily cannot enter another private caveat on the document of title based on the
same SPA.
Q5 PP 2022
OUTLINE 5c PP 2022 :
Rick had indeed applied to Registrar to remove the Registrar’s Caveat pursuant to s321(a)
NLC. However, his application was rejected. Rick is advised to rely on second limb of
s321(c) NLC to apply to court for removal.

By virtue of s418(1) NLC, since Rick is aggrieved by the decision of the Registrar who had
rejected his application, Rick should file an appeal to High Court within 3 months after the
said decision had been communicated to him; Tan Soo Bing v Tan Kooi Fook.

In submission, the Registrar Caveat could be removed by the Court order.

Q6 PP 2022
Shophouse valued RM800k
Hari Musa Friendly loan + Deposit of IDT = Lien
Signed ? documents

Absconded

Immediate purchaser
BOBO
- Issue of fraud
- Attestation witness : Tee Puu
Q 6 PP 2022 :
OUTLINE 6ai PP 2022 :
Malaysia Land Law is based on Torrens system, where registration means everything. This is
to say in simpler term, whoever name appears on the register, he shall possess the legal
ownership towards the said land. Bobo has her name on the land title, s340(1) NLC provides
that she would enjoy the indefeasible title or interest. Nevertheless, the facts suggested that
there were some exceptions where the said indefeasibility of title could be vitiated.
Possible of fraud / misrepresentation (s340(2)(a) NLC)
The facts suggested that Hari signed some documents and forms as requested by Musa for
the loan. Hari would not have realized those documents were meant for transfer of title. To
establish fraud, according to Tai Lee Finance v OA, the burden is on Hari on balance of
probabilities (Sinnaiyah & Sons v Damai Setia) to establish that there is actual fraud, fraud
must be prior / at time of registration and fraud must be brought home by Bobo whose title is
sought to be impeached. To establish misrepresentation, Hari must establish that Bobo had
made a false representation (positive assertion) where he had relied and acted upon.
OUTLINE 6ai PP 2022 :
The facts are insufficient to ascertain that Bobo had been a privy of the said fraud/
misrepresentation. The facts did not reveal the nexus and details of transaction of Bobo and
Musa as well. Therefore, it would be unlikely that Hari could establish
fraud/misrepresentation, Bobo’s title could NOT affected by s340(2)(a) NLC.

Insufficent or Void Instrument (s340(2)(c) NLC)

It came to light that Messrs Tee Pu was not a genuine Advocate & Solicitor registered in the
roll, Tee Pu is not the rightful / legitimate officer to attest executions of instrument affecting
dealing under NLC, pursuant to Para (1) (1) (e), Fifth Schedule s211 NLC. The fact that Tee
Pu is the attestation witness for Hari had contravened the law.
Therefore, the said contract for sale could be insufficient or void for this ground (s340(2)(c)
NLC, then, Bobo would not get an indefeasible title.
OUTLINE 6ai PP 2022 :
Immediate Purchaser (s340(3)(a) NLC)
It appeared on the fact that, Bobo had acquired the title directly from Hari. Bobo is the
immediate purchaser of the shophouse. Bobo could not rely on s340(3)(a) NLC to protect her
title, as Malaysia has practiced deferred indefeasibility. According to the case of Tan Ying
Hong v Tan Sian San, only subsequent bona fide purchaser will be protected under
s340(3)(a) NLC.

In conclusion, due to the insufficient / void instrument of dealing on part of the illegitimate
attestation witness (Messrs Tee Pu), s340(2)(b) NLC would set in. The title acquired by
Bobo is defeasible.
Q 6 PP 2022 :
 OUTLINE 6aii PP 2022 :
Reference is made to s340(3) NLC had provided that the purchaser with good faith and for valuable consideration
may enjoy indefeasibility of title. In case of Sivam A/L Tharalingam v Public Bank, it is held that

1. Good faith does not simply mean absence of fraud, deceit or dishonesty; it also requires acting honestly, reasonable or fairly –
this includes taking ordinary precautions that ought to be taken,

2. The elements of good faith are not close; it must in all cases depend upon the circumstances.

3. It is not enough for a purchaser to merely show absence of fraud, deceit or dishonestly; knowledge of a dispute as to the
ownership of property and knowledge of fraud allegation could vitiate good faith;

4. An element of carelessness and negligence negates good faith.

The facts given did not provide adequate information on Bobo. Should she satisfy the criteria in T.Sivam, she may claim to be the
bona fide purchaser for valuable consideration. Even if she does so, she would not enjoy the indefeasibility for the reason that she is
the immediate purchaser. Malaysia had practiced deferred indefeasibility (Tan Ying Hong v Tan Sian San)
Q 6 PP 2022 :
OUTLINE 6b PP 2022 :
Reference is made to
s.6 CLA 1956 which excludes the application of English equitable principles relating to land
tenure, conveyance, assurance or succession to any immovable property or any estate, right or
interest.
s.3 CLA 1956 provides that English equitable principles apply when there is lacuna in the local
law, it suits the local circumstances and the English common law is decided before 7 April 1956.
Despite the conflicting view of the two provisions, the court had been adopting English equitable
principles to serve the justice. For instances:
Borneo Housing Mortgage Finance v Time Engineering: the Federal Court held that when a
purchaser under a SPA has paid full purchase price and executed the Memorandum of Transfer,
bare trust will arise that the purchaser has become the equitable owner while the vendor merely
holds the property as bare trustee.
OUTLINE 6b PP 2022 :
Temenggong Securities Ltd & Anor v Registrar of Titles, Johore, it is held that the
vendors, after receipt of the full purchase price and surrender of possession of the lands
to the purchasers are bare trustees for the purchasers of the said land.

In the event where there are two competing claims and in this kind of scenario, courts
have resorted to the concept of bare trust or doctrine of notice to resolve competing
claims.

In submission, doctrine of bare trust is well recognized by the Malaysia Judicial

approach.
OUTLINE 7a(i) PP 2022 :
General rule : s267(1) NLC  purchaser
On the facts given, Toto had rented out the property to Pinjam without any consent in writing by the
chargee, Maju Bank. The said tenancy was not endorsed on the register of title to the land pursuant to
Chapter 7 of Part 18 NLC.

By virtue of s267(2) NLC, in the absence of consent in writing and endorsement, Upin will not take
certificate of sale subjected to tenancy with Pinjam

Even though, Pinjam could show that the tenancy agreement was one of the kind that is exempted from
registration (eg: term of tenancy not exceeding 3 years under s213(3) NLC), pursuant to s267(3) NLC,
since it had not become protected by endorsement, Upin shall not be bound with the tenancy after
the foreclosure.

Case referred : Hotel Ambassador Sdn. Bhd. v Seapower Sdn Bhd

OUTLINE 7a(ii) PP 2022 :
s257(1)(g) NLC is a strict provision that compel Upin the pay the balance of
purchase price not later than 120 days from the date of sale, and there shall
be no extension of time.

In the event should Maju Bank granted the extension of time, the order for
sale shall become illegal/unlawful. Upin may not be able to enjoy the
indefeasibility of the title according to s340(2)(c) NLC. This is clearly reflected
in the case of M&J Frozen Food v Siland Sdn Bhd
OUTLINE 7b PP 2022 :
The error in Form 16A, s242(1) NLC may render the charge of Money Bank to be defeasible on the
ground of insufficient or void instrument, s340(2)(b) NLC

Money Bank could apply to Registrar to make correction of errors in document of title by virtue of
s380(1)(c) NLC, since Money Bank had made a genuine mistake pertaining to the issue of charge.

If the said land is under Land Office Title, prior approval of State Director must be obtained, s380(2)
NCL.

Referring to the case of Island & Peninsular Development Bhd v Legal Adviser Kedah, the power of the
Registrar under s380(1) NLC is confined to any error or omission made by the Registrar and does
not extend to that made by the parties or their solicitors. Since the fact suggested that the error
was done by Money Bank’s solicitor. It is likely that application made by Money Bank under s380(1)
NLC shall be rejected by the Registrar.
OUTLINE 7c PP 2022 :
Upon the rejection, the next recourse available for Money Bank which is aggrieved by the
decision of Registrar is to appeal to High Court by OS + AFFIDAVIT pursuant to s418 NLC.

The Court may order the Registrar / Land Administrator to make any amendment of, or
addition to any such instrument under s417 NLC.

Case referred : Malaysian Building Society Bhd v KCSB Konsortium Sdn Bhd