Au Meng Nam & Anor v Ung Yak Chew & Ors Summary of Decision 5

Au Meng Nam & Anor v Ung Yak Chew & Ors Summary of Decision 5

Summary of Decision

5) (per Raus JCA; Hasan JCA concurring)

Since the first defendant was relying on the proviso of section 340(3) of the Code, that he was a bona fide purchaser for valuable consideration, the evidential burden fell on him. The evidential burden remained with the first defendant. There was no duty on the plaintiffs to prove that the first defendant was a party or privy to the fraud or forgery (see paragraph 45).

the evidential burden      Beban pembuktian
fell on him terletak ke atasnya
Remained kekal
a party satu pihak
This entry was posted in Case Law, Indefeasibility, Land law and tagged , . Bookmark the permalink.