Au Meng Nam & Anor v Ung Yak Chew & Ors Summary of Decision 3

Au Meng Nam & Anor v Ung Yak Chew & Ors Summary of Decision 3

Summary of the Court’s Decision

 

(1)      (per Raus JCA; Hasan JCA concurring)

An existence of a sale and purchase agreement and the payment of the purchase price in full could not be the only indicator to show whether a person is a bona fide purchaser or otherwise. Other salient features surrounding the sale and purchase agreement must be considered (see paragraph 41 of the Judgment in MLJ). In the present case, had the learned trial judge taken other facts and circumstances into consideration, he could not possibly conclude that the first defendant was a bona fide purchaser for valuable consideration, so as to be protected under section 340(3) of the Code. The first defendant had concluded the sale without any proper investigation into the title or the persons claiming to be proprietors. No doubt he had every right to take advantage of the low price that was offered to him but he took the risk. When he embarked into such risk, it could not be at the expense of the plaintiffs. In such circumstances the court must not favour the first defendant over the plaintiffs. To do so, would be doing injustice to the plaintiffs (see paragraph 42 of the Judgment in MLJ). Further, had the evidence adduced in this case been properly considered and assessed by
the learned trial judge, a reasonable inference would be that the first defendant knew at the time he bought the land, the purchase price was below the market value. But he wanted to take advantage of the low price. He did a fast track to complete the purchase. In doing so he disregarded his obligations to investigate the alleged proprietors and the genuineness of the documents. A purchaser in good faith does not include a purchaser who is careless or who had been negligent (see paragraph 43 of the Judgment in MLJ).

An existence Kewujudan
a sale and purchase agreement Satu perjanjian jualbeli
payment of the purchase price in full bayaran penuh untuk harga belian
indicator petunjuk
whether sama ada
otherwise sebaliknya
Features Ciri-ciri
Salient penting
must be considered hendaklah diambilkira
taken other facts and circumstances into consideration mengambilkira fakta-fakta dan keadaan lain
he could not possibly conclude that beliau tidak mungkin membuat kesimpulan
for valuable consideration Untuk balasan yang bernilai
to be protected under s 340(3) of the Code. Yang mendapat perlindungan di bawah s 340(3) Kanun tersebut
had concluded the sale telah  membuat jualan
without any proper investigation Tanpa sebarang siasatan yang sempurna
the persons claiming to be proprietors Mereka yang telah mendakwa sebagai tuan punya
No doubt Tidak diragukan
he had every right Beliau mempunyai hak
To take advantage of untuk mengambil peluang terhadap
but he took the
risk
tetapi beliau telah mengambil risiko
When he embarked into such risk Apabila beliau mengambil risiko sedemikian
at the expense
 of the  plaintiffs
Sehingga menjejaskan plaintif-plaintif.
the court must not favour the first defendant over the plaintiffs mahkamah tidak sepatutnya menyebelahi defendan pertama dan bukan plaintif-plaintif.
doing injustice tidak berlaku adil
The evidence adduced Keterangan dikemukakan dalam kes
been properly considered telah dipertimbangkan dengan sewajarnya
assessed dinilai
reasonable inference satu inferens yang munasabah
below the market value di bawah nilai pasaran
But he wanted to take advantage of Namun beliau ingin mengambil kesempatan
a fast track dengan pantas
complete the purchase menyelesaikan belian itu
disregarded his obligations tidak menghiraukan tanggungjawabnya
alleged proprietors tuan punya yang dikatakan itu
the genuineness keaslian
A purchaser in good faith Seorang pembeli berniat baik
a purchaser who is careless seorang pembeli yang kurang berhati-hati
who had been negligent yang telah cuai
This entry was posted in Case Law, Indefeasibility, Land law and tagged , . Bookmark the permalink.