R Thangaratnam d/o Vythilingam v Vinayagamoorthy a/l Rajaratnam & Ors [2008] 3 MLJ 61

R Thangaratnam d/o Vythilingam v Vinayagamoorthy a/l Rajaratnam & Ors
[2008] 3 MLJ 61
CIVIL APPEAL NO N-02–135 OF 1995
COURT OF APPEAL (PUTRAJAYA)
DECIDED-DATE-1: 27 DECEMBER 2007
ABDUL AZIZ MOHAMAD, JAMES FOONG AND ZALEHA ZAHARI JJCA
Facts of the case.

The appellant was the registered proprietor of a piece of land (‘the property’). Her son — the first respondent — suggested that she transfer the property to him. By letter dated 23 December 1983, the appellant wrote to the first respondent authorising him to transfer the property to his name. The appellant subsequently executed a power of attorney in Sri Lanka in favour of the first respondent, which power of attorney was registered in the High Court of Malaya on 12 June 1984. However, on 19 March 1984, the first respondent transferred the said property to the second respondent as trustee for the third respondent. The third respondent was the son of the first respondent and grandchild of the appellant. With such transfer, the third respondent effectively became the beneficial registered proprietor of the said property. The appellant took issue and claimed that she never consented to transfer the said property to the third respondent. The appellant thus filed an action in the High Court seeking, inter alia, to declare the transfer ultra vires, illegal and void and sought an order compelling the second respondent to retransfer the said property to her, free of any encumbrances. The High Court however dismissed the appellant’s claim. The High Court held that if the appellant had intended to transfer the said property to the first respondent as indicated by the power of attorney and her letter dated 23 December 1983, there was no restriction on the first respondent to transfer the property straight to his son — the third respondent. The High Court then went on to hold that though the power of attorney did not authorise the first respondent to transfer the said property to himself, nevertheless the appellant’s letter of 23 December 1983 would have overcome any shortcoming. The appellant appealed to the Court of Appeal. It was the appellant’s submission that the High Court had erred in deciding that the power of attorney could be cured and/or substituted by the letter dated 23 December 1983 giving ‘extra power’ to the first respondent.

Meanings of the underlined words.

 

executed a power of attorney menyempurnakan surat kuasa wakil
in favour of the first respondent menyebelahi responden pertama
trustee pemegang amanah
beneficial registered proprietor tuan punya benefisiari berdaftar
retransfer the said property to her memindah semula hartanah tersebut kepadanya
free of any encumbrances bebas daripada sebarang sekatan
overcome any shortcoming. mengatasi sebarang kekurangan
had erred terkhilaf
This entry was posted in Land law and tagged . Bookmark the permalink.