Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Weaknesses in The Registration of Land Dealings System in Malaysia PDF
Weaknesses in The Registration of Land Dealings System in Malaysia PDF
by
[2010] 1 LNS(A) l
MALAYSIA
Introduction
Land is a source of wealth and has continued to be a cause of social, ethnic, cultural and religious
conflict from time immemorial. Thus, as society evolved, laws were developed to promote a proper land
administration system in order to meet the changing needs of the world societies. A good land
registration system is pertinent to ensure protection of property rights. As society progressed and
became more complex, the need for certainty increased. The Industrial Revolution experienced by many
nations required something beyond the practice of walking the boundaries of a field and throwing dirt
over one's shoulder especially when it involved change of ownership of plantations, factories, or
buildings. Governments recognised the need to eliminate uncertainty and perjury by requiring
production of land title documents to prove existence of title.
According to Dale & McLaughlin, land registration system is a system used in land administration to
recognise formalised property rights and for regulating the character and transfer of these rights.[1] The
importance of appropriate land registration systems is aptly put in a research paper from Maine
University, which makes a number of important statements including; "Improvements to land-
registration systems and the establishment of land-information systems are basic reforms which are a
prerequisite for efficient human settlements development" [2]. An efficient and reliable land
registration system is important for the socio-economic development of the nation.
Land-title registration is a critical starting point in the continuum of modernisation, and it has
ramifications for many other aspects of land management. Registration of title to land identifies
ownership of the parcel or plot of land, as well as other forms of tenure and interests on it, simplifies,
cheapens and expedites land transactions and conveyancing and improves credit flow to land
development, as well as facilitates more effective planning for orderly human settlement.[3]
Innovations in improving the land registration and recording system led to computerisation of titles. Of
course not all innovations can work well without teething problems. However, the pressing issue at
present that requires immediate attention from all stakeholders is the increase in fraudulent land
dealings which though small in number has an adverse impact and could erode the confidence of
investors and cripple the economy if left unchecked.
This article seeks to identify the strengths and weaknesses within the Malaysian land dealings
registration system in order to make recommendations to improve the system. The first part of the
paper provides background information on the rationale for introducing the Torrens system into
Malaysia, and important concepts and features of the Torrens system to provide background
information on the strength of the system. The procedures involved in registration of all title and
interests arising from land dealings will be set out to provide an insight into the Malaysian property
conveyancing practice where fraud could possibly occur. The functions of the Registrar in registering
dealings will be examined in order to identify the constraints imposed on the Registry in the land
dealings registration process. Finally, the paper seeks to highlight some inherent defects within the land
dealings registration system that provides room for fraudsters to commit the act in order to suggest
recommendations for improving the Malaysian land registration system.
The Malaysian land administration system is based on the Torrens system. Torrens title is a South
Australian invention that revolutionised the method of recording and registering land ownership, and
was introduced by Sir Robert Torrens. The historical origins of the Torrens title are a matter of
considerable controversy. Torrens himself acknowledged adapting his proposals from earlier systems of
transfer and registration, particularly the system of registration of merchant ships in the United
Kingdom. Stanley Robinson,[4] has argued that Ulrich Hubbe, a German lawyer living in South Australia
in the 1850s, made the most important single contribution by adapting principles borrowed from the
Hanseatic registration system in Hamburg.[5]
Nevertheless, it cannot be denied that Torrens' political activities were substantially responsible for
securing acceptance of the new system in South Australia and eventually, in other Australian colonies
and New Zealand.[6] Torrens decided that there must be a better and easier way of registering not only
the ownership of land, and interests in land, but also recording any transactions that were undertaken
by those with an interest in that land. He is credited with a system of land title registration that still
bears his name, the Torrens system of Title, effected by the Real Property Act (RPA) to give effect to a
land title register system which, in some key areas, was substantially different from the deeds system.
The Torrens Title System was first introduced in South Australia in 1858 and subsequently used in other
Australian states and some parts around the world.
Torrens reasoned that any substitute system that was to be introduced in place of the deeds recording
system must be simple, secure, certain, inexpensive, able to be applied without necessarily engaging a
solicitor and allow every transaction to be effected quickly. He considered that three important and
fundamental principles were necessary for this system. In keeping with his aims of simplicity and
effectiveness he concluded that the three most important principles were that:
* All properties must have a document called a certificate of title, to evidence ownership
* All interests in property must be registered and endorsed on the certificate of title (both register
and issue document of title)
* The certificate of title had to be guaranteed by the government with the establishment of an
assurance fund.
The main objective of the Torrens title system is to make the Register of documents of title conclusive
evidence of land ownership. Once a person's title or interest is registered in accordance with the
prescribed registration procedures, it will be recorded in the Register document of title, and the person
in whose favour the dealing is registered will become the indefeasible proprietor or interest holder to
the exclusion of all others.
Under the system, a certificate of title is issued for every piece of land. The certificate contains
particulars including details of proprietors, interests affecting the land and any encumbrances including
charges (mortgages), leases and other interests in the land. Torrens Title is useful because it prevents
unnecessary litigation of disputes, avoids the consequences of lost certificates and reduces the costs of
land sale and transfer. The Torrens system advocates the concept of indefeasibility, which simply means
that a person who is registered and recorded as the owner of a parcel of land cannot have their title
challenged or overturned. However, their title can be questioned or impeached if it can be proven to fall
within the exceptions to this general rule, for instance if the registration was obtained by way of fraud,
forgery, insufficient instruments, or incapacity of parties to deal with the land.[7]
The Register is everything and all dealings must be registered in order to gain recognition and protection
and be conferred the status of indefeasibility. The reason for the need to change the existing land
tenure system is basically due to the deficiencies in the deeds system especially where equitable
interests could prevail under the system of deeds when a purchaser took with actual notice of that
interest; the complex and uncertain deeds system which was time consuming and costly.
The Register is given importance and it helps create a reliable, simple, cheap, speedy system suited to
the needs of the community.[8] In Teh Bee v. Maruthamuthu,[9] it was affirmed by the Malaysian court
that, under the Torrens system, the register is everything and it would be wrong to allow an
investigation as to the right of the person to appear upon the register when he holds the certificate of
title.
In Fels v. Knowles,[10] the Court of Appeal of New Zealand opined that "[t]he cardinal principle of the
[Torrens] statute is that the register is everything". That decision from New Zealand was approved and
followed by the Privy Council in Damodaran v. Choe Kuan Him.[11] The registration provisions are
provided in Part Eighteen of the National Land Code 1965. The importance of registration was stressed
by Lord Wilberforce in Frazer v. Walker,[12] that "it is the registration and not its antecedents which
vests and divests title".
The Torrens system is based on the land as the basis of record and not based on an individual
proprietor. The Chief Justice of the High Court in Australia, Sir Garfield Banwick, describes the
characteristic of the Torrens system in Breskvar v. Wall,[13] as a form, not a system of title by
registration of title but a system of title by registration. That which the certificate of title describes is not
the title which the registered proprietor formerly had, or which but for registration would have had.
The basic difference between the deeds registration and Torrens system is that the former involves
registration of instruments while the latter involves registration of title. Moreover, though a register of
who owned what land was maintained, it was unreliable and could be challenged in the courts at any
time. The limits of the deeds registration system meant that transfers of land were slow, expensive, and
often unable to create certainty of title. In assessing the benefits and means of converting titles issued
under the old system, to the Torrens title, it is observed that title registration is an efficient land
administration system that facilitates conveyancing. It is a system of record, not of land tenure, and is
readily adaptable to any form of land tenure. Plural tenure systems may be handled at one time as long
as the tenure systems are accepted by society.[14]
Mirror principle
The register (Certificate of Title) reflects (mirrors) accurately and completely the current facts about a
person's title. This means if a person is to sell an estate, the new title has to be identical to the old one
in terms of description of lands, except for the owner's name. Under the Torrens system, the register
reflects all the facts material to the proprietor's title in the land. These material facts consists of the
following:
The phrase "Mirror Principle" is very apt since all the necessary information related to the land is
reflected on both the Register Document of Title and the Issue or Extract of Document of Title. This will
assist all interested purchasers, lessees, or chargees to obtain all relevant particulars of the land as well
as any encumbrances created over the land in the event they decide to obtain the proprietorship or any
interest in the land.
Curtain principle
One does not need to go behind the Certificate of Title as it contains all the information about the title.
This means that ownership need not be proved by long complicated documents that are kept by the
owner, like in the private conveyancing system. All the necessary information regarding ownership is on
the Register Document of Title. This principle emphasises that the intending purchaser or interested
acquirer need not look "behind" or beyond the Register. It is sufficient if the purchaser examines the
Register Document of Title in order to obtain particulars related to the land.
Assurance principle
Torrens system provides for compensation for losses incurred if there are errors made by the Registrar
of Titles. However, the system that has been developed for the Malaysian land law has only adopted the
two principles ie, the mirror and curtain principles. Accordingly, Lord Diplock advised in the Privy Council
case of Registrar of Titles, Johore v. Temenggong Securities Ltd,[15] that the National Land Code 1965
applies a modified form of Torrens system of registration of titles relating to alienated land. The most
important feature of the Torrens system is conferment of indefeasibility of title and interest upon
registration. The following paragraphs will discuss the concept of indefeasibility and its importance in
maintaining the sanctity of the land registration system of the Torrens system as envisaged by the
founder.
The most noticeable feature of the Torrens system is the indefeasibility of title. A warranty given by the
state of an indefeasible title in favour of a person registered as an owner of any title or interest in land.
The Register creates unimpeachable, unexaminable and conclusive title.[16] Nevertheless,
indefeasibility is not absolute as under certain circumstances a registered title or interest may be set
aside or defeated by a better claim. However, supremacy of such title is still subject to the statutory
exception as spelt out in s. 340(2) of the National Land Code 1965.[17] In Ong Chat Pang & Anor v.
Valiappa Chettiar,[18] the court observed that in the absence of any of the vitiating factors laid down in
s. 340 of the National Land Code 1965, a title once registered is indefeasible. In PJTV Denson (M) Sdn
Bhd & Ors v. Roxy (M) Sdn Bhd[19] Raja Azlan Shah CJ held that:
The concept of indefeasibility of title is so deeply embedded in our land law that it seems almost trite
to restate it. Therefore, the registration of the transfer of the said land under the NLC defeats all prior
unregistered interests in that land unless the party who acquires the registered title has been guilty of
fraud.[20]
Indefeasibility is not limited to a registered title but extends to registered interests,[21] for example, the
court upheld the interest of a registered chargee on the land over that of a caveator.
Similar to most legal terminologies the term "indefeasibility" is apparently loaded with a plethora of
meanings that sometimes makes it difficult to apprehend. For some writers "indefeasibility"
corresponds to "immutability" while to others it is that which is "unchangeable". According to Black's
Law Dictionary the term is used to mean:
That which cannot be defeated, revoked, or made void.[22] The term is usually applied to an estate or
right which cannot be defeated.
Land is an immovable property, as such unlike other forms of property, a subject matter that is
capable of conferring different types of interests to be held by different persons at the same time. All or
some of these interests might or might not appear on the register.
*
Land is a great source of income to the government, either by levying taxes on it or by rent
collection,[23] and to the individual citizens or commercial bodies who would use it to generate wealth
either through sale, leasing or as a security for loans.
In order to be able to support who has what in a piece of land. This helps to reduce conflict (time
and expenses) over property by the unsatisfied contesting parties. It may also further minimise the
overutilisation of government or public resources especially court time in resolving any disputes arising
therein.
It is because of these differences, and in certain occasions, multiple interests held by different persons in
the same piece of land, that the law requires that such rights and the land itself should be precisely
defined. The purchaser of a piece of land must be careful enough when he tries to spend money to
purchase a piece of land or else he may end up with something less than his money's worth. This, of
course will give rise to lots of conflicts and unnecessary litigation.
In order for the state authority to minimise the occurrence of such problems, it has to make the title
acquired more precise by providing a registration system, although there is more to the system of title
registration than merely determining who owns what and in what proportion and where. The existence
of the registration system does not in itself mean that problems or disputes over land would totally be
eradicated. It is only a convenient method devised by some jurisdictions to properly carry out land
administration. In the modern market economy the requirement becomes even more conducive.
The National Land Code 1965 adopts the Torrens system of acquisition of title and interest by
registration. However, one of the most important features of any Torrens system of title by registration
is the presumed warranty or assurance given by the state or the government that upon registration, a
person so registered as a proprietor will acquire a good title, that is, mere registration of a person's title
means that his right is stronger than any other person whose name does not appear on the register.
Thus, the person whose title or interest appears first on the register will be protected and hence his
interest will be enforced by law. In Mohammad bin Buyong v. Pemungut Hasil Tanah Gombak & Ors,[24]
the court held that s. 340 of the National Land Code refers to the doctrine of indefeasibility. It "protects
... the title or interest of any person for the time being registered as proprietor of any land [which] shall
be indefeasible".[25] The whole practice is a sheer question of policy on the part of the government
authority to encourage members of the community to comply with the legislative requirement to make
it more effective. "The protection which the statute gives to persons transacting on the faith of the
Register is, by its terms, limited to those who actually deal with or derive right from a proprietor whose
name is upon the register".[26] Thus, and "as registration is a prerequisite of indefeasibility" a person
claiming indefeasibility must first be registered as proprietor[27]. In Malaysia, similar to other Torrens
jurisdictions, the concept of indefeasibility is central to the whole registration system.[28] This means
that mere registration of the title or an interest in land is enough to confer indefeasibility of title.
However, a differentiation must be made between the nature of "indefeasibility" and the conditions or
restrictions imposed upon the proprietor by the state authority. A condition or a restriction imposed by
the state authority on a title or an interest thereof does not impeach or necessarily diminish or form an
attack on the title or an interest thus registered.[29] Thus, in order that such a registration should be of
any use, that is to confer indefeasibility of title, it must be effected through certain formalities, i.e. a
proper form or an instrument of dealing as referred to under the National Land Code 1965. That means
a registration carried out without a proper form or instrument becomes unenforceable by the law. It is,
therefore, the formal registration of the instrument of dealing in its statutory requirement, under the
"strict Torrens principles", and not any transaction that takes place between the parties regarding land
prior to such registration, that passes the title or creates an interest in the said land. This is the gist in
the decision of the Privy Council in the case of Frazer v. Walker where Lord Wilberforce states that: "it is
in fact the registration and not its antecedents which vests and divests title".[30]
Having said that, let us now turn and find out what is it that the National Land Code 1965 declares to be
indefeasible. Pursuant to s. 340(1), indefeasibility is attributed to title and all registrable interests in
land. Title here refers to proprietorship or ownership of land. Interest refers to those "rights" that are
created in land and which are capable of transfer and hence registration. They are lesser than the full
ownership e.g. leases, charges, liens, easements, etc., however, and the holders of such interests may
not in law be referred to as "proprietors of the land itself".[31] Nevertheless, and since their interests
have been registered under the Code, they will be considered as proprietors of the legal interest in such
land. Such interests would therefore be declared indefeasible in the eyes of the law.
Thus, and despite the apparent generality of s. 340(1) of the National Land Code 1965, two things may
be observable. Firstly: the Code refers to alienated land only. Secondly: only persons mentioned under s.
43 are capable of acquiring indefeasibility of title under the Code. As mentioned by Sihombing
"indefeasibility belongs only to those parties entitled to hold land".[32] However, a judicial problem
arises when courts come to determine what types of the registered proprietors should be protected.
Suppose we have two persons one of whom "A" enters into a contractual agreement to purchase a
specific piece of land but his execution was partial only in that he paid the price but was not registered.
"B" on the other hand obtained title to land gratuitously without valuable consideration and was
registered as a proprietor - as in cases of gifts. The question is: which of the two should the law protect.
The Code itself does not make this clear since s. 340(1) mentions in general terms that indefeasibility of
title should be conferred on "any person or body for the time being registered as proprietor". This
means that the Code does not make any distinction as between a purchaser for value and a volunteer.
At least this is what is presumably understood by the phrase "any person or body for the time being
registered as proprietor of any land."[33]
This, of course, seems to suggest that even a volunteer may be protected so long as he becomes a
registered proprietor. But if one looks further down the same section, we can find that s. 340(3) makes a
distinction as to whether a person is a purchaser in good faith and for valuable consideration or not but
not a word is mentioned about a volunteer. However, judicial attitude on the matter suggests that
volunteers should not be protected - at least as seems, on policy consideration. The case of Ong Chat
Pang v. Valliappa Chettiar[34] would afford a good illustration to this judicial attitude. In this case, "A" a
registered proprietor contracted to sell his land to "B", but later transferred the same land to "C". B
brought an action against A and C claiming specific performance. The court granted relief to B on the
ground that C failed to prove that he was a bona fide purchaser for value. Registration did not avail C
from having his interest be set aside. Teo & Khaw are disagreeable to this decision and query as to "how
[can] the title to the land registered in the name of the...defendants...be set aside"[35] without the
proof of any of the vitiating factors required by the Code?[36] According to Teo & Khaw a registered title
gives rise to a prima facie presumption of indefeasibility unless such an action is caught by the legal
exceptions under s. 340(2) of the National Land Code 1965.[37] They continue to agree with David
Wong[38] and argue validly that, that being the case and since s. 340(2) of the National Land Code 1965
specifically legislates about the circumstances that vitiate a registered title under the National Land
Code 1965, then there seems no cogent reason to bring the Specific Relief Act 1950 to bear on this case,
the latter being a general law meant for granting equitable remedies.[39]
(1) Since the concept of adverse possession leading to acquiring title by prescription through long user
does not apply in Malaysia,[40] a defeasible title will remain so until set aside or be removed from the
register. There is no time limit for attacking a defeasible title.
(2) Any defeasible title could subsequently be converted into an indefeasible title.
(3) It follows that, in Malaysia, indefeasibility of a registered title or interest may be postponed or
deferred to a later date until such time as the defective title is either rectified or is transferred into the
hands of a subsequent purchaser in bona fide (good faith) and for valuable consideration.
It has been mentioned earlier that the concept of indefeasibility is not absolute in nature. Thus, and
since the registration is what "vests" and "divests" the title, a prima facie registered proprietor
continues to hold a good title until attacked or challenged by a rightful claimant. Any registered person,
therefore, has power in law to transfer an indefeasible title to a third party who is innocent and with
valuable consideration without notice of the defective title. In other words, if the aggrieved party fails to
act timeously by immediately contesting the registered title, then he will not be able to recover if such
title or interest has been passed by the apparently or presumably registered proprietor to another
person who has relied on the register and thus did not have any knowledge that the title to land or any
interest thereof was in any way defeasible in nature. Here the third party who is innocent acquires an
indefeasible title even against the original proprietor. Under such situations the only remedy open for
the contesting party is damages in an in personam claim against the previous defeasible title holder.[41]
However, what prevents the original proprietor from recovering from the innocent third party is the fact
that such a person has already been registered as a proprietor. In other words, anything less than the
actual registration, that is the entry of the memorial in the register document of title under the hand
and seal of the Registrar[42], would be open for attack by the aggrieved claimant. This means that a
mere entry in the presentation book[43] is not by itself sufficient to confer an indefeasible title as
required by the Code.[44]
Section 340(2) of the National Land Code 1965 provides for what is commonly referred to as statutory
exceptions to the concept of indefeasibility in Peninsular Malaysia. Although with certain controversy, a
good number of academics believe that "deferred indefeasibility" is applied in Peninsular Malaysia. This
inherently raises the importance of the instrument used for registration.[45] It is important to point out
in this connection that the nature of indefeasibility varies from one Torrens jurisdiction to another.
There exists a number of instances leading to statutory exceptions under the National Land Code 1965
through fraud and misrepresentation; forgery, void or an insufficient instrument; and lastly if a title was
acquired unlawfully.[46] This means that after registration, if a person comes forward and establishes
that such a registration was acquired through one of the above means, then such a title or interest "shall
not be indefeasible"[47] and would thus be held vulnerable to attacks and challenges by others,[48] and
if the claimant succeeds then the registration may be liable to be set aside.
The Federal Court decision in Adorna Properties Sdn Bhd v. Boonsom Boonyanit @ Sun Yok
Eng[49](Adorna Properties), created some misconceptions to the concept of indefeasiblity in Malaysia.
In that case it was held, inter alia, that by virtue of the proviso to subs.(3) of s. 340 of the NLC, any
purchaser in good faith for valuable consideration is excluded from the application of the said provision.
It follows, therefore, that this category of proprietors enjoy immediate indefeasible title to the lands.
Therefore, despite the court's finding that the instrument of transfer was forged the appellant
nevertheless obtained an indefeasible title to the land. The decision of the Court in that case had a far
reaching effect on the land law and land administration in this country.
Before the decision of Adorna Properties the prevailing view was that s. 340 of the NLC confers deferred
indefeasibility as opposed to immediate indefeasibility. This was confirmed by the Federal Court in
Mohammad bin Buyong v. Pemungut Hasil Tanah Gombak & Others.[50] This is further reinforced by the
Supreme Court's decision in M & J Frozen Food Sdn Bhd & Anor v. Siland Sdn Bhd & Anor.[51] There the
Supreme Court, comprising of Abdul Hamid Omar LP, Edgar Joseph Jr and Wan Yahya SCJJ held that
indefeasibility can be rebutted not only by fraud but also in cases where registration is obtained by the
use of an insufficient or void instrument or where the title or interest is unlawfully acquired.
The effect of Adorna Properties is to confer immediate indefeasibility to the registered proprietor. That
decision was followed, albeit reluctantly, in a number of subsequent cases such as Ismail bin Mohamad
& Anor v. Ismail bin Husin & 4 Ors.[52]
However, in the recent case of Tan Ying Hong v. Tan Sian San & Ors,[53] the Federal Court was asked to
decide whether an acquirer of a registered charge or other interest or title under the National Land
Code 1965 by means of a forged instrument acquires an immediate indefeasible interest or title. The
court stressed that, the fact that the interest in question is obtained in good faith for value is not an
issue, because once the court is satisfied that the interest (charges) arose from void instruments, it
automatically follows that they are liable to be set aside at the instance of the registered proprietor.
Protecting sanctity of indefeasibility with imposition of rigid procedures for registration of dealings
The following paragraphs will examine the procedures involved in registration of title and interests in
land to identify the weaknesses within the system to suggest reforms so as to reduce the problems
towards enhancing the Malaysian land registration system.
The National Land Code 1965 provides in clear terms that once a dealing to confer title or interests is
registered in accordance with the prescribed requirements, the owner or interest holder cannot have
their title or interests challenged or overturned. There are exceptions to the concept of indefeasibility,
i.e. s. 340(2) of the National Land Code 1965 provides several exceptions to indefeasibility of title, and
these represent situations when a registered title or interest may be open to attack in the following
circumstances:
* in any case of fraud or misrepresentation to which the person or body, or any agent of the person
or body, was a party or privy;
* where the title or interest was unlawfully acquired through purported exercise of any power or
authority conferred by law.
In such instances, the title of the person can be impeached and challenged in a court of law. However,
this is a very complex area of law and the burden of proving the allegations is imposed on the person
questioning the indefeasible rights. In the event if the allegation is proved, the court will declare the title
or interest created by virtue of the fraudulent or forged transfer as void and unenforceable and revest
the land back to the original proprietor.[54] A purchaser can also bring a claim against the Land Registry
or Land Office seeking compensation if they suffer a loss as a consequence of fraud or the omission of
some legal interest relating to the title or if there are discrepancies in the survey and marking of the
boundary of the land.
Section 206(1)(a) of the National Land Code 1965 prescribes that in order for any dealing to be valid and
enforceable under the Code, it shall be effected by an instrument complying with the requirements
stipulated in ss. 207 to 212 and it must be registered. Section 207(1) prescribes that every instrument
effecting any dealing must be made using the prescribed statutory instruments provided in the First
Schedule with some variations or adaptations permitted as long as they are not a matter of substance.
Section 207(2) specifically requires that headings and schedules must be inserted in instruments of
dealings as indicated by the relevant forms in the First Schedule as provided in Form 13A. Section 207(3)
provides that this form must be attested as required by s. 211.
The court has held that the statutory forms are flexible enough. Therefore, the use of the wrong
statutory form will not invalidate a dealing created. In V Letchumanan v. Central Malaysian Finance
Bhd.[55] a charge provided that the loan money was to be paid in instalments after execution of the
charge rather than payment in full before execution as was stated in the charge. In an annexure,
repayment was to be made on demand, though unless and until demand was made, the loan was
repayable by instalments. On default, the chargee sought to sell the land, but the chargor objected on
the basis that the charge should not have been made in Form 16A because it provided for payment in
instalments. The Federal Court held that the use of Form 16A in this case was correct as the statutory
form is flexible enough.
A charge was created using Form 16A to secure the payment of rent under a chattel-lease of equipment.
On default the charge applied to the Land Administrator for sale of the land. However, the chargor
objected on the basis that the charge should have been made using Form 16B and so was invalid. The
court held that it was a charge within the provisions of subsection (2), but although the wrong form had
been used, the charge remained valid by virtue of the Interpretation Act 1948 and 1967. The deviation
was not of substantial effect nor was it calculated to mislead. The High Court also rejected the
contention of the chargor that a charge had to be in one of the two available forms, namely Form 16A
for repayment of principal sum and Form 16B for payment of periodic sums. In Tan Yen Yee & Anor v.
Equity Finance Corp Bhd,[56] the dispute was on the type of form to be used for creation of charge. The
first plaintiff, as the managing director of a company, entered into a leasing agreement with the
defendant whereby the company agreed to pay the total rental sum of $127,000.08 payable in advance
by 36 equal monthly rentals of $3,527.78. The plaintiffs then executed a charge over land as security for
the payment of the rental under the lease. The charge was in Form 16B of the First Schedule to the
National Land Code 1965. The company defaulted on the instalments and the defendant applied to the
Land Administrator, Batu Pahat, for an order of sale of the land. The plaintiffs applied for a declaration
that the charge was null and void because the charge should not be in Form B but in Form A of the First
Schedule to the Code. Richard Talalla JC held that; "It is provided in s. 207(1) of the National Land Code
1965 as follows: 'Every instrument effecting any dealing under the Code must be in the forms prescribed
in the First Schedule as is specified in relation to the dealing in question in the appropriate part of this
division. Provided that the form so specified for any dealing may, so long as the variation is not in a
matter of substance, be used in any particular case with such adaptations, alterations or additions as
may be rendered necessary by the character of the parties or other circumstances of the case'."
Table A List of prescribed statutory instruments forms for registration of dealings as prescribed by
National Land Code 1965.[57]
Sections 208 and 209 of the National Land Code 1965 impose a statutory requirement that every
instrument used to effect dealing must clearly specify all the following information:
(c) where the effect of instrument is to transfer any land to two or more persons or bodies as co-
proprietors, the shares in which land is to be held;
(iii) lot number of the land in case of land held under the final title;
(v) if land consists of a parcel of buildings held under strata title, that parcel must be described. For
instance the parcel number and the title number of the parcel.
Section 210(1) of the National Land Code 1965 lays down four categories of persons or bodies who can
execute the instrument of dealings. First, it can be executed by the respective parties. For instance in
the case of transfer of land through an ordinary sale and purchase process, Form 14A must be executed
by the respective parties, that is by the proprietor of the land being the transferor, and the purchaser as
the transferee. Secondly, it may be executed by a person acting under a valid power of attorney or the
authority of any written law or by order of court. In such a situation, a Registrar or Land Administrator as
the case may be, is under a duty to require the production of documents to prove a valid power of
attorney before accepting the instrument for registration. Thirdly, it also can be executed by any person
acting on the authority of any written law, including the National Land Code 1965. Fourthly, an
instrument of dealing can be executed by any person on an order of the court.
Section 210(2) of the National Land Code 1965 provides that the execution of any such instrument by a
natural person shall consist of his signing it or affixing his thumbprint thereto. "Natural persons" include
an individual, an individual in his capacity as a trustee, a public officer such as any officer of the Court
(i.e. Assistant Registrar of High Court) and an Official Assignee; and an individual in his capacity as done
under a power of attorney.[58] Further s. 210(3) of the National Land Code 1965 states that in the case
of execution by a corporation, the Code requires that it shall be effected in such a manner as it is
authorised by its constitution and it shall be deemed to have been duly executed and shall be conclusive
evidence of the execution if the seal of that corporation and a statement signed by two authorised
officers of the corporation to the effect that the seal was affixed thereto in their presence. Thus in the
case of a company registered under the Companies Act 1965, the execution of an instrument of dealing
must follow the manner prescribed in the articles of association. Similarly any specific person who may
be authorised to sign any instrument of dealing on behalf of the company will be specifically mentioned
in the articles of association.
On the other hand, the execution by a co-operative society that is registered under the Cooperative
Societies Act 1993 shall be in accordance with the procedures laid down in its by-laws. Similarly for a
society established under the Societies Act 1966, the execution shall be performed in accordance with
the provisions of the constitution of the society where the party that is authorised to sign for any
dealings involving that respective society is identified. Meanwhile for a body corporate established by a
Federal or a State law, the execution of the instrument of dealing must be in the manner prescribed by
the enabling statute.
In order to satisfy the requirement of having the genuine signature or thumbprint presented for
registration under the land law or the mining law, it is provided by s. 211 of the National Land Code
1965 that every execution by a natural person (but not corporation) or any instrument affecting any
dealing be attested by one of the following persons namely: (1) a magistrate; (2) the State Director; (3)
the Registrar; (4) a Land Administrator; (5) an advocate and solicitor; and (6) a notary public. It is also
provided that where any instrument is attested outside Malaysia the people listed in the Fifth
Schedule[59] are authorised to attest. However, if dealings involve a Malay holding or customary
land,[60] every execution by of any instrument must be witnessed and attested by the Land
Administrator only. The requirement of attestation by Land Administrator is not imposed on the
instrument of charge in respect of any Malay holding or land reservation executed by a person under a
power of attorney on behalf of a body corporate or a company, provided that such body corporate or
company is allowed to be a chargee under the Malay Reservations Enactment of the State as well as any
instrument of discharge of charge.[61]
Section 211(2) of the National Land Code 1965 requires the attestation clause to be used in the format
shown in Form 13B while s. 211(3) states that the officer attesting any execution shall sign the
attestation clause and, if he has a seal of office, authenticate his signature with that seal. Section 212
further provides that for the purpose of simplicity, no instrument shall be capable of effecting dealings
with respect to more lands than one unless the dealings in question are all of the like nature, and are all
effected by the same person or body in favour of the same person or body; and the register documents
of title to the lands in question are all kept in the same Registry or Land Office as the case may be.
Registration of instrument of dealings
As the Torrens system requires registration, all instruments of dealings must be duly registered. As
stated in 206(1)(b) of the National Land Code 1965, no such dealing shall operate to transfer the title to
any alienated land or, as the case may be, to create, transfer or otherwise affect any interest therein,
until it has been registered under Part Eighteen of the National Land Code 1965. Failure to register any
of the dealings however as stated in s. 206(3), does not affect the contractual operation of any
transactions. Section 292(1) of the National Land Code 1965 states that a particular instrument may be
registered; the word "may" indicates that registration of any dealing is optional. Therefore, parties to a
transaction despite not being entitled to claim any right under the National Land Code 1965 due to lack
of registration according to the manner prescribed, can seek enforcement of remedies under contract.
Basically the registration of dealings according to s. 304 of the National Land Code 1965 is effected by
the making of a memorial of the dealings on the Register Document of Title under the hand and seal of
the Registrar or the Land Administrator as the case may be. According to s. 5 of the National Land Code
1965, Land Administrator is the person appointed for registering land dealings involving the Land Office
Title (Mukim Register) and Registrar of Title for Registry Title. The National Land Code 1965 has
prescribed conditions precedent to be complied with in order for an instrument to be accepted for
presentation and registration.
The presentation of an instrument of dealing can be accepted and entered in the Presentation Book by
the Registrar or Land Administrator only if:
(a) it is accompanied by the registration fee as prescribed in the state land rules;[62]
(b) it is accompanied by the delayed registration fee, if it is presented after three months from the
date of its execution; [63]
(c) it is the original copy and it is duly stamped in accordance with the provisions of the Stamp Act
1949; [64]
(d) it is a lease or a sub-lease or a charge, accompanied by a duplicate lease or a duplicate sub-lease or
a duplicate charge (as the case may be) which has been certified as a true copy of the original by one of
the officers specified in the Fifth Schedule to the Code and is duly stamped; [65]
(e) it is executed on behalf of any person or body under a power of attorney, accompanied by the
supporting document or documents required by s. 309 of the National Land Code 1965;[66]
(f) it is executed by a management corporation under the powers conferred by s. 47 of the Strata
Titles Act 1985, accompanied by the certificate required by s. 47(3)(c) of that Act; [67]
(g) it is accompanied by relevant documents depending on the type of dealing that is going to be
created. [68]
Section 294(4) of the National Land Code 1965 clearly states that any instrument which is not
accompanied by the relevant documents abovementioned will not bar the entry of the dealing in the
Presentation Book[69] but it is the duty of the Registrar to make enquiries with respect to any missing
documents, and take necessary action for securing its production.[70] The Registrar is entitled to reject
any instrument of dealing presented for registration in the event if it is not in order. However, the
Registrar can register the instrument upon production of the document or if he is satisfied that its
production ought to be dispensed with, or he can reject it altogether.[71] It appears that the Registrar
has full power and discretion to require the production of necessary documents pursuant to s. 299 of
the National Land Code 1965. This has given ri se to considerable differences in the Land Offices
practices. [72]
The entry of the instrument in the Presentation Book according to s. 295 of the National Land Code 1965
is conclusive evidence as to the time of presentation of any instrument of dealing at the Land Registry.
However, this does not amount to registration. The instrument submitted for registration can be
withdrawn at any time before its registration. As provided in s. 296 a withdrawal can be made by serving
a notice on the Registrar by the person or body by whom it was presented. Consequently a note in the
Presentation Book must be made upon such withdrawal.
The power of the Registrar is administrative in nature in which he will proceed with the registration if he
finds that the applicant had complied with all the necessary requirements and procedures. However, if
he finds that such procedures had not been complied with, he then has a right to suspend or reject that
application.[74] In Mohammad Bin Buyong v. Pemungut Hasil Tanah, Gombak,[75] it was held that the
words "shall not register" in s. 300 of the National Land Code 1965 are merely directory and not
mandatory and failure on the part of the Registrar to comply with it does not invalidate the registration.
The Registrar is vested with the power to require production of certain documents whenever he
considers them necessary. However, this power is subject to certain limitations as prescribed in s. 303 of
the National Land Code 1965 as follows:
(i) the Registrar need not be concerned to enquire whether any transfer of a lease, sub-lease or a
grant, constitutes a breach of any agreement against assignment or sub-letting.
(ii) in the case of a lease, sub-lease or surrender granted or accepted by a chargee in possession, the
Registrar is not obliged to enquire whether the chargee was rightfully in possession.
(iii) the Registrar is also not concerned to enquire into the validity of any certificate of sale issued
pursuant to a sale upon default of a charge.
(iv) where a dealing is effected by a person registered as a trustee or representative, the Registrar is
not concerned to enquire whether the dealing is consistent with or permitted by the trust instrument.
He is under no obligation to make any enquiries or to seek further information even if he suspects that
the transaction may be in breach of trust. However where it has come to his knowledge that the
transaction is in breach of trust, he must reject the instrument as being unfit for registration.[76]
Registration is effected by the Registrar by making a memorial on the Register Document of Title. A
memorial is also made on the instrument itself. The registering officer must sign and affix his seal to the
memorial and until signed, it is not effective to mean registration. [77] A memorial must include a short
description of the nature, effect of instrument, identity of parties, file reference number, time and date
when the registration is effective. The effective date of registration of any instrument shall be taken as
the time and date of its presentation as entered in the Presentation Book[78] and upon such
registration, the title or interest of any person or body for the time being registered as proprietor of any
land or in whose name any interest is for the time being registered shall be indefeasible. However, this
indefeasibility of title or interest is subjected to several statutory and customary exceptions.
If the dealing is ex facie registrable the Registrar cannot refuse to register it unless he believes or is
aware that the instrument has been executed improperly or impropriety is present in the application for
registration. Although the registration of a transfer in which the transferor .s name has been forged
cannot protect even a bona fide purchaser for value without notice, yet on registration of that transfer it
is possible for the transferee to confer an indefeasible title on a bona fide purchaser for value without
notice on the principle that indefeasibility is deferred rather than immediate.[79]
According to Abdoolcader J in Pow Hing & Anor v. Registrar of Titles, Malacca,[80] in commenting on the
conduct of officials carrying out their duties under the Code, the party presenting the instrument for
registration would be entitled to take action against the Registrar who fails to carry out his duty or who
performs it mala fide, and the action of the Land Office could result in an order for mandamus made
against the Registrar by the High Court in an application made by the aggrieved persons. [81]
Tun Zaki Tun Azmi, the Chief Justice of Malaya in delivering his judgement in Tan Ying Hong v. Tan Sian
San & Ors.[82] said that he hoped that the Land Authorities will be extra cautious when registering
transfers. Thus, Land Administrators and Registrars entrusted with the responsibility to register dealings
must ensure that they carry out their duties with absolute care and caution to protect innocent
landowners from unscrupulous people.
* The following are some of the circumstances where documents can be found to be unfit for
registration by Registrar:
* where the instrument does not relate to a registrable interest, or does not comply with the
requirements as to form, execution or attestation, or is not stamped;
* where the instrument is linked to matters which would encumber the register with unregistrable
subsidiary matters;
* where the incorrect procedure was adopted; for example, where a personal representative
instead of applying for registration as proprietor of the subject land[85] seeks to combine that
application with a subsequent transfer of the land;[86]
* where there is a prohibition or limitation on the dealing imposed by a written law other than the
Code; for example, the Land (Group Settlement Area) Act 1960 (Act 530) or the relevant Malay
Reservation legislation of the various States;
* where the dealing would be contrary to the restrictions in interest to which the particular land is
subject [87] or to any other limitation or restriction imposed by reference to the nature of the
transaction or any prior transaction concerning the same land; and
* where the instrument declares or discloses a trust contrary to s. 344 of the National Land Code
1965.
The Registrar is required to suspend the registration of any dealing presented for registration for a
period not exceeding 14 days, as he may consider necessary for enabling the defect or error to be
rectified or, as the case may be, the document or documents in question to be produced, and, at the
expiry of that period, shall register or reject the instrument as appropriate. On suspending the
registration of any instrument the Registrar is required to give notice to the person or body by whom
the instrument was presented, specifying the period and the reasons for suspension.
On rejecting any instrument, the Registrar is required to mark it with the word "Rejected", return it to
the person or body by whom it was presented together with a note of the reasons, and cause a note of
the rejection to be made in the Presentation Book.
In the event that there is defect of substance, the Registrar is obliged to reject the instrument. An
instrument rejected on the ground of defect of substance may not thereafter be re-presented so that
any priority for the dealing it represents will be lost. The lodging party has two alternative methods of
action on rejection. First, he is permitted to redo the instrument in a manner acceptable to the
Registrar; this will require the instrument to be executed, attested and lodged in the usual way. Pending
this, the lodging party must enter a caveat to protect his claim to an interest in the land. Secondly, he
can seek an injunction against the Registrar requiring him to register the instrument in its current form.
Where the process of registration is suspended because of a formal defect or clerical error the solicitor,
as the lodging party, can amend the instrument himself as long as the amendment in not one of
substance. [88] Any required amendment which would make the document difficult to read, should be
made on an annexure to the instrument which should be executed by all parties to the instrument and
attested in the usual form,[89] identified as an annexure to the instrument, and attached securely to the
instrument. The suspended instrument does not lose the priority it obtained on presentation pending
correction of the defect. [90]
The Registrar is conferred a discretionary power to dispense with production of the document, or to
reject the instrument which has not been accompanied by a relevant document. The rejected
instrument must be so endorsed and cannot be lodged thereafter. [91] Where the Registrar does not
reject the instrument, he can decide not to ask for the production of the issue document of title but to
issue a title in continuation or a duplicate issue document of title pursuant to s. 175 of the National Land
Code 1965. However, in taking this course of action, the Registrar must be aware of potential activity of
transactions outside the Code using any existing issue document of title which has been claimed to have
been lost or where the holder refuses to produce it.
Registrar's power to correct errors
The Registrar has power to make corrections to the document of title whenever the Registrar is satisfied
that:
* any document of title has been registered or issued in the wrong name, or contains wrong
descriptions of land or boundaries or other errors or omissions; or
* any memorial or entry has been made mistakenly on any document of title; or
* any memorial or other entry made on any such document of title or instrument itself contains any
error or omission. [92]
It is important to note that the power of the Registrar to correct errors is confined to the errors or
omissions made by the registering authority and not by any other persons.[93] This power cannot be
exercisable in respect of land held under Land Office Title or the corresponding form of qualified title
except with approval of the State Director. Details of all corrections made by the Registrar must be
recorded in a book called "Correction Note-book".[94] The procedures prescribed by the National Land
Code 1965 with respect to registration of dealings are very systematic. The registering authority
assumes an important role in ensuring that the registration of instruments of dealings is carried out
accordingly. However, in recent years, complaints about land fraud have increased and this will have an
adverse impact on the socio-economic development of the nation. The weaknesses within the land
registration departments have been cited as the major cause of land fraud.
According to S K Das, "every system of Torrens legislation contains a provision permitting the Registrar
some latitude in registering a document modified or altered in expression to suit the circumstances of
every case and any variations from such forms respectively in any respect not being a matter of
substance".[95] SK Das further said that it is not the duty of the Registrar to require proof negating fraud
or improper dealing where there is nothing on the face of the document submitted to suggest it, nor to
enquire into unregistered interests.[96] This is in line with the provisions of s. 22 of the National Land
Code 1965 where it expressly provides that; "No officer appointed under this part shall be liable to be
sued in any civil court for an act or matter done, or ordered to be done, by him in good faith and in the
intended exercise of any power, or the performance of any duty, conferred or imposed on him by or
under this Act."
The power of the Registrar is confined to the errors or omissions made by the registering authority and
not others. This has been confirmed in the case of Island & Peninsular Development Berhad & Anor v.
Legal Advisor, Kedah & Ors.[97] Thus, the chance of occurrences of fraud or any improper dealing in the
Land Office is very minimum. However, we cannot rule out the fact that it is possible if a dishonest
member of staff could be tempted to collude with the perpetrator of a fraudulent dealing.
The detailed description of the process of administration of land dealings under the National Land Code
1965 shows clearly that it is not easy to commit fraud or improper dealings. However, we do have cases
of fraud and the statistics produced by the Police Department are clear proof of occurrences of fraud.
The subsequent paragraph will examine the weaknesses in the land dealings registration system.
Diagram 1 Flow chart on registration of dealings in Malaysia & fraud & forgery variables
Despite the dealings registration system manifesting itself to be an efficient system, however, fraud and
improper dealings within the conveyancing system is unavoidable. The Royal Malaysian Police
investigation has identified a few modus operandi used by criminals in transferring land to themselves
or other unsuspecting bona fide purchasers.[99]
The National Land Code 1965 prescribes the use of Form 14A to effect transfer of title or Form 16A/B for
registering a Charge. The signature of the transferor or chargor (especially for a third party charge) can
easily be forged without anyone actually realising it. It may go unnoticed, including by the registering
authority, legal practitioners and a commissioner for oaths who may be witnessing signatures of parties
without actually being present. A legal practitioner or commissioner for oaths can be cheated by an
imposter by using a forged identity card. Pictures in identity cards are usually not reliable as it could be a
picture taken some time ago or the person may have grown a beard/moustache or shaved off his
beard/moustache, removed their spectacles for the picture or used some other method to disguise their
identity.
The Land Registry or office when presented with a document of power of attorney will only examine
whether the document is legally effective such as the signature of donor and donee, attestation by the
commissioner for oaths, and registration with the court. The registering authority is not trained to
detect any defects on the instrument and they will register the dealing presented with a power of
attorney unsuspectingly as long as it carries the court's seal and endorsements.
Using court order to register dealings in favour of prospective title or interest holders without
verification of validity
The Land Registry/Office very often registers dealings relying on court orders without verifying the
validity of such orders as the National Land Code 1965 does not require them to question the validity of
such orders. The registering authority simply relies on the court's common seal and other particulars of
the case provided by the parties. The registering authorities are not required to make any further
enquiries and will register the dealing unsuspectingly. Furthermore, they are not trained and unable to
detect any likeliness of fraud.
Applying for issuance of replacement document of title on the pretext of having lost the original title
An imposter can make a report of loss of the issue document of title to the police, and submit the report
to the Land Registry/Office with the intention of applying for a replacement document of title. This is
made simpler with the assistance of unsuspecting Land Office staff or unscrupulous insiders who can be
paid to assist the imposter.
An imposter can make a report of loss of the issue document of title to the police, and submit the report
to the Land Registry/Office with the intention of applying for a replacement document of title. This is
made simpler with the assistance of unsuspecting Land Office staff or unscrupulous insiders who can be
paid to assist the imposter.
Police investigation has shown that there are some staff employed by the private consultants engaged
to manage the computerised land registration system who have misused the access code to the system.
They have been involved in the land fraud scam as they can enter information onto the computer using
the access code given to them especially if the particulars on the documents of title are not clear and
this gives them room to tamper with the particulars of ownership.
Police investigation shows that the fraudster or imposter has been using a middleman to deal with the
Land Office. Any unsuspecting conveyancing clerks could be used for the purposes of presenting or
collecting registered documents with a small amount of fee in return for their services. The clerks being
familiar to the Land Registry/Office can easily present the instrument without arousing suspicion
amongst the Land Office staff.
Table 1 Statistics of forgery and cheating cases from 2005 - March 2008
2008
March
Total
Perlis - - - 1 1
Kedah 6 6 8 2 22
Pulau Pinang 7 11 25 1 44
Perak 1 4 8 1 14
Selangor 12 12 9 6 39
Kuala Lumpur 14 8 10 6 38
Negeri Sembilan 1 3 5 - 9
Malacca 3 3 2 - 8
Johor 4 8 6 3 21
Kelantan 4 6 6 2 18
Terengganu 1 8 9 1 19
Pahang 3 3 3 - 9
Sarawak 6 2 7 3 18
Sabah 21 16 14 2 53
Table 2 Statistics of types of cases involving forged documents used to cheat land dealings for the period
of 2005-2007
2007
(Jan-Jun)
Total
Total 63 83 39 185
Despite the preamble to the National Land Code 1965 manifesting the Code as amongst others
providing for uniform land and policy for registration of dealings, there is a certain amount of resistance
within the Land Offices. Land Offices resort to using special guidelines, rules and procedures unique to
their own office for their convenience.
The Registrar has limited powers in registering the land dealings. His duties are limited to examining
whether an instrument is fit for registration as prescribed in s. 298 of the National Land Code 1965. So
long as the instrument is "fit for registration" he is duty bound to register the dealing. He is not required
to examine the instrument for fraud or improper dealings.
The Land Registry/Office staff lacks expertise and resources to detect forgery in land dealings. According
to a senior experienced member of staff at the Land Office, it is not possible for Land Office staff to
identify a forged signature as they are not trained.[100] Furthermore, they have no reason to suspect
unless they are alerted by the relevant parties. Use of a thumbprint to execute the instrument of
dealings instead of a signature can be a good mechanism to reduce forgery in Malaysia as no one
thumbprint is similar to any other.
The land computerisation system is said to have problems and can provide avenues to those committing
fraud. The security and stability of the register can be questioned. It is important to ensure the accuracy
of the registration system. Provision needs to be made for the failings of technology. The private agency
appointed to assist the land registration departments to computerise the land titles has used temporary
staff who have kept the access code and used it for purposes of entering fraudulent dealings. They can
go undetected as they are appointed on part-time basis.[101]
The practice of legal practitioners and commissioners for oaths attesting the signatures of parties
without actually being present at the time of the party signing the conveyance documents can allow
fraud to occur. In any transaction affecting land be it a sale or a purchase or establishing an interest over
land, it is important to confirm the identity of the parties involved in the transaction. However, the legal
practitioners and commissioners for oaths due to their heavy workload, at times rely on their clerks to
verify the identity of the signatory. There is a clear instruction from the Malaysian Bar Council for legal
practitioners and commissioners for oaths to be present at the time when conveyancing or other
documents are executed. However, at times, the instruction is not complied with. The court in Lau Teck
San @ Lau Beng Cheng & 3 Ors v. SK Song,[102] held that an attesting solicitor would be liable for
professional negligence and or breach of an implied warranty of authority in the event the transferor
turns out to be an impostor. This could help deter the busy practitioners from relying on their clerical
staff to identify a person executing documents.
It is important to revisit the rationale for introducing the Torrens system of registration in Malaysia
especially as there is evidence of risks to the system posed by fraud and other threats that have
impacted the system so as to reduce its effectiveness. The following are some of the suggestions and
recommendations that could be considered in the context of improving the dealings registration system.
Enhancing function of land administration technical committee
A committee has been established at the Federal and State Government level to identify the issues and
problems relating to land administration and fraud. The membership of the committee must be
extended to include Bar Council representatives besides the police. This will help the committee to
identify the weaknesses in the conveyancing practice and capacity building of conveyancing
practitioners.
The certificate of correctness probably is a guarantee that the Registrar may accept an instrument at its
face value, i.e. that the person signing the certificate is aware of the antecedent circumstances which
culminated in the execution of the instrument. If the instrument ex facie is not in order, then it will be
rejected notwithstanding the certificate of correctness. The Registrar only sees what actually appears in
the instrument, hence it seems necessary to have the dealing vouched for. In other words, the Registrar
places a trust in the solicitor or broker, and when a person certifies an instrument, only reasonably close
contact with the facts which culminate in the execution of that instrument would appear to discharge
that trust, but a solicitor or broker whose staff arrangements are such that every transaction is
investigated with care and accuracy should be safe in certifying. A lawyer or real estate agent certifying
as to correctness should sign his own name and not that of his firm.[103] And the certificate shall show
that he is acting for the party claiming under the instrument.
James Hogg, in the first leading text on the Torrens system says:[104] "In addition to attestation by
prescribed witnesses, the instrument must ... be endorsed with a certificate, by the person who seeks to
have it registered or his properly constituted agent that it is 'correct for the purposes of' the local
Statute ... The provision seems in the five Statutes in which it occurs to afford some further ground for
the argument that the intention of the legislatures, in enacting it, was to ensure by all possible means
the correctness of the instrument tendered for registration, and relieve the person who obtained
registration on the faith of it from all further liability".
Suppose a lawyer were to certify as correct an instrument which was the result of a transaction the
details of which were unknown to him, and he signed it as correct merely to oblige an acquaintance, or
merely as a matter of form to secure registration relying on the clerk's certification. The official view is
that this would be an entire misconception of the nature of the responsibility assignable to him. If a
solicitor or broker is not aware of the circumstances surrounding a given transaction, how can he give an
assurance that is bona fide, and it is this assurance which, it would seem, the certification was intended
to produce. For example, a lawyer or real estate agent who has interviewed both vendor and vendee,
has seen the contract for sale, has identified the land by official search, and has officiated at the actual
settlement, can honestly certify the memorandum of transfer, or a solicitor or broker whose staff
arrangements are such that every transaction is investigated with care and accuracy should be safe in
certifying.
The Registrar only sees what actually appears in the instrument hence it is necessary to have the dealing
vouched for. It can be seen therefore that much reliance is placed on the certification. In other words
the Registrar places a trust in the lawyer or real estate agent, and when a person certifies an instrument,
only reasonably close contact with the facts which culminate in the execution of that instrument, would
appear to discharge that trust.[105]
It is recommended for lawyers and any party entrusted to witness the execution of documents to call all
parties entering into the transaction to meet at one session where the parties will meet eye to eye
rather than relying on estate agents or land brokers. This will provide verification as to the identity of
the parties. There must also be established a procedure for the thorough identification of the parties by
asking for identity card, driver's licence or passport and keeping a copy in the file. It is advised to adopt
the 100 Point Check verification procedure as a minimum standard.[106] Extreme care should be taken
in transactions involving non English or Bahasa Malaysia speaking clients and ensure they are fully aware
of the contents and of the documents they are executing and the nature of the transaction they are
entering. The execution of documents must be witnessed only after verifying the identity of all parties to
the transaction. If dealing is transacted by virtue of a power of attorney or trust deed, all documents
purporting to confer the authority to deal with the property must be verified to ensure the authenticity
of the documents to prevent fraud or improper dealing by unscrupulous parties seeking to make fast
cash.
The most important requirement for ensuring a successful and smooth working of the Torrens system
according to SK Das is an adequate and highly efficient staff in the registry so that presentation of an
instrument for registration is immediately noted in the presentation book and a memorial thereof made
with the least possible delay. The possibility of any error in effecting a memorial must be avoided and, in
that context, noting in the presentation book of the date and the exact time of presentation of
instruments for registration becomes highly significant, for priority is thereby preserved and
indefeasibility of title assured.[107] It is important to educate and train the Land Registry/Office staff to
ensure the land registration system is effective and lives up to the principles and characteristics of the
Torrens system.
'Benchmarking' has been defined by the AusIndustry-Best Practice Program (1995) as "an on-going,
systematic process to search for and introduce international best practice into your own organization,
conducted in such a way that all parts of your organization understand and achieve their full potential.
The search may be for products, services, or business practices and processes of competitors or those
organizations recognized as leaders in the industry or specific business processes that you have
chosen."[108]
Benchmarking is recognised as having a key role to play in improving public sector performance.
Benchmarking is an important tool or mechanism developed to identify strength and weaknesses of a
particular system in order to suggest improvements. Tools for benchmarking were developed to
improve performance by identifying best practice through learning from others and, in so doing, to
stimulate innovation and to gain a competitive edge in a rapidly changing and evolving business
environment. At EU level, the importance of competitiveness was given recognition with the
establishment of a dedicated Enterprise Directorate General. Erkki Liikanen, as EU Commissioner for
Enterprise and the Information Society, highlighted the importance of benchmarking for the public
sector in the year 2000 when he asserted that "Benchmarking has a key role to play ... by providing a
mechanism for identifying world-wide best practice and for learning from it ... I am determined to
promote benchmarking as a central instrument for improving the quality of policy implementation. ...
Benchmarking can play a valuable role in helping public sector organisations identify and share best
practice." In Ireland, benchmarking is commonly used in the health sector and in pay determination for
public sector workers. Steudler and Williamson observed in 2002 that "there are no internationally
accepted methodologies to measure and compare the performance of land administration
systems".[109] The United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (UNECE) Land Administration
Guidelines of 2005 state that "the efficiency, integrity and transparency of the land administration
system must be constantly measured and monitored, through performance indicators relating for
example to the time and cost of each transaction, and consumer satisfaction". [110] In this regard, the
World Bank has developed a widely recognised "league" table on registering property in different
countries, which is based on three criteria, the number of procedures involved, the time taken and the
cost.[111]
Benchmarking exercises are important and it would be useful to facilitate throughout the country a
benchmarking exercise so as to improve performance of Land Administration departments and achieve
the following;
* to justify the need to improve land administration and the registration system and identify
areas/priorities for reform;
* to identify and link all issues and sectors relating to land tenure such as financial aspects, good
governance, sustainability, social perspective and other related issues from time to time with the
changing needs of the society;
Benchmarking is a continuous process and requires a significant investment of effort by all parties. The
first steps might be to build simple models with neighbouring countries that have comparable systems
of land registration.
This could be supported by the development of a forum for exchange of information, evaluation of
findings and consideration of the modalities for exchange of comparative data.
Principles for good governance of land administration were identified by Zakout as one that must
comprise of the following principles:[112]
No Principles Mechanism
1 Efficiency Procedures to register property transactions should be short and simple. The
fewer steps there are, the less opportunity for informal payments.
5 Subsidiary, autonomy & accountability Increasing the autonomy of local land administration,
while introducing checks and balances at the national level, can improve services and reduce corruption.
6 Citizen response & participation Client orientation and responsiveness in land administration can
be achieved through improved access to information, customer surveys to measure customers
satisfaction and hotlines to enable customers to report corruption and misconduct.
7 Equity, fairness & impartiality All people should have the same service standards independent
of their political or economic status. The introduction of counter offices and a numbering system for
customers arrival ("first come first served") achieve the objective.
8 Legal security & rule of law Good governance in land administration requires a consistent
and coherent legal framework, a fair and transparent judiciary and general prevalence of the rule of law
to protect property rights.
Conclusion
This article has attempted to set out the strengths and weaknesses of the land registration system and
the circumstances where it can be exposed to fraud or improper dealings. Police investigation shows
that the majority of fraud occurs prior to registration and this can go undetected at the Land Registry or
Land Office as the staff entrusted with the registration process has very limited powers. Thus, lawyers
and all other parties entrusted with preparing documents in conveyancing practice must assume an
important role in the contract and pre-registration process to prevent incidents of fraud. The various
suggestions especially the aspect relating to issuing of certificate of correctness and closing of dealing
session must be studied and explored further in the context of improving Malaysian conveyancing
practice. In Australia and New Zealand, this mechanism has helped reduce fraud considerably. The
Malaysian land registration system is organised, efficient and provides clear guidelines, and fraudulent
dealings can be prevented if the Land Registry or Land Office staff are trained to detect fraud. The
Registrar has limited powers in that he is required to register all dealings if the dealings are in order and
fulfil all the conditions precedent for effecting registration. It is hoped that the relevant authorities
especially the land administration authorities would look into the important aspects of land
administration that is the capacity building of the personnel involved in the land registration system so
as to equip them with the relevant knowledge, skills, the ability to combat fraudulent dealings and
preserve the inviolability of the land registration system as envisaged by Sir Robert Torrens. The Torrens
system has many advantages, other than those envisaged by Torrens. However, at present the system
has become very cumbersome and expensive for the layman. The Malaysian land dealings registration
system must be enhanced further to curb the increasing rate of fraud or any improper dealings over
land.
+ Sweet & Maxwell Asia and Ainul Jaria bt Maidin & Hunud Abia Kadouf 2009. This article was first
published in The Law Review, a journal published by Sweet & Maxwell Asia, at [2009] LR 500.
* Associate Professor, Ahmad Ibrahim Kulliyyah of Laws, International Islamic University Malaysia,
Senior Consultant of Land Tenure & Environmental Management Unit (LATEM) Non Practising Advocate
& Solicitor Malaya.
** Professor, Ahmad Ibrahim Kulliyyah of Laws, International Islamic University Malaysia, Senior
Consultant, Land Tenure & Environmental Management Unit (LATEM), Former Sudan Court of Appeal
Judge.
[1] Dale, PD and McLaughlin, JD, Land Administration (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1999).
[2] Department of Spatial Information Science and Engineering, University of Maine US Dept of
Agriculture and US Dept of Commerce "Land Title Recording in the United States: A Statistical
Summary", State and Local Government Special Studies No 67 (1974). See also Stein, R T J and Stone, M
A, (1991), Torrens Title, Butterworths, Sydney, p 15.
[3] Ibid, p 1.
[4] Robinson, Stanley, Transfer of Land in Victoria (Sydney: Law Book Co, 1979), see also Hogg, James E,
The Australian Torrens system : being a treatise on the system of land transfer and registration of title
now in operation in the six states of the Commonwealth of Australia, the colony of New Zealand, and Fiji
and British New Guinea (London: W Clowes, 1905).
[5] Ibid.
[6] Refer Esposito, Antonio, "A Comparison of the Australian ('Torrens') System of Land Registration of
1858 and the Law of Hamburg in the 1850s", [2003] Australian Journal of Legal History 13, where he
argues that the Torrens system owes it roots to the 600 year old system that operated in the Hanseatic
towns of Germany, especially in Hamburg, and points to Dr Ulrich Hubbe, a German lawyer from
Hamburg who emigrated to South Australia in 1842 and died there in 1892, and who was consulted by
Torrens in the preparation of the original draft of 1858. Refer Fox, "The story behind the Torrens
System", (1950) 23 Australian Law Journal 489; Stein, Robert and Stone, Margaret, (1991) Torrens Title,
Butterworths, Sydney, p 17; Whalan, D J, "The origins of the Torrens System and its introduction in New
Zealand" in Hinde, G W (ed), (1991), The New Zealand Torrens System Centennial Essays Wellington,
New Zealand p 1; Mary Geyer, Robert Richard Torrens and the Real Property Act: The Creation of a Myth
(BA (Hons)) Thesis, University of Adelaide, 1991), p 1; Howell, P A, "Constitutional and Political
Development, 1857-1890" in Jaensch, Dean (ed), (1986), The Flinders History of South Australia: Volume
2, Political History (Wakefield, Adelaide) p 158.
[8] Khublall, "Title to Land - Defects, Protection Against Loss and Marketability", [1991] 3 MLJ cv at p cxi.
[9]Teh Bee v. Maruthamuthu [1977] 1 LNS 134; [1977] 2 MLJ 7, FC; in this case, it was established that
the fact that the register document of title was in the name of the appellant was conclusive evidence
that the title to the land was vested in the appellant.
[14] This is true in the case where the customary land tenure is recognised under the National Land
Code 1965, s. 4 and it co-exists with Torrens system. Similarly in Australia too, conversion to Torrens
system did not affect the co-existence of the existing land administration system: see Holstein, L C, and
Williamson, I P, "Conversion of Deeds Registration Titles to Torrens Title - A Review of the Situation in
NSW", Aust J Geod Photo Surv, No 40, June 1984, p 1-28.
[15]Registrar of Titles, Johore v. Temenggong Securities Ltd [1976] 1 LNS 135; [1977] AC 302 at 306F;
[1976] 2 MLJ 44 at 45, PC.
[17] For exception in equity, see the discussion of Salleh Buang, "Equity and the NLC, Penetrating the
Dark Cloud", [1986] 1 MLJ cxxv.
[18]Ong Chat Pang & Anor v. Valiappa Chettiar [1971] 1 LNS 96; [1971] 1 MLJ 224, FC.
[19]PJTV Denson (M) Sdn Bhd & Ors v. Roxy (M) Sdn Bhd [1980] 1 LNS 55; [1980] 2 MLJ 136, FC.
[21] In KSM Insuran Bhd v. Amanah Chase Merchant Bank Bhd [1992] 1 CLJ 143 (Rep); [1992] 2 CLJ 1148;
[1992] 1 MLJ 649, SC, for example, the court upheld the interest of a registered chargee on the land over
that of a caveator.
[22] Emphasis added.
[23] See the National Land Code 1965, ss. 76(b), (c), 62(1), 65(1), 70, 75(A), (D).
[24]Mohammad bin Buyong v. Pemungut Hasil Tanah Gombak & Ors [1981] 1 LNS 114; [1982] 2 MLJ 53.
[25] Ibid, at 54, per Hashim Yeop A Sani J (as he then was).
[26] Per Lord Watson in Gibbs v. Messer [1891] AC 248, PC, at 254-255.
[27]Mohammad bin Buyong v. Pemungut Hasil Tanah Gombak & Ors [1981] 1 LNS 114; [1982] 2 MLJ 53
at 54.
[28] See per Raja Azlan Shah CJ (Malaya) in PJTV Denson (M) Sdn Bhd v. Roxy [1980] 1 LNS 55; [1980] 2
MLJ 136, FC, who mentions that: "the concept of indefeasibiliy ... is so deeply embedded in our land law
that it is almost trite to restate it".
[29] See Sihombing, J, National Land Code: A Commentary, 2nd edn (Kuala Lumpur and Singapore:
Malayan Law Journal, 1992). Also refer to the National Land Code 1965, ss 103-129 inclusive.
[31] Cf, per Jemuri Serjan SCJ in Malayan United Finance Bhd v. Tay Lay Soon [1991] 1 CLJ 292 (Rep);
[1991] 2 CLJ 899; [1991] 1 MLJ 504, SC. A lease holder is therefore not a proprietor as decided in Lee
Chuan Tuan v. Commissioner of Lands and Mines, Johor Bahru [1973] 1 LNS 27; [1973] 2 MLJ 188.
[32] Sihombing, J, National Land Code: A Commentary, 2nd edn (Kuala Lumpur and Singapore: Malayan
Law Journal, 1992), p 792. See the National Land Code 1965, s. 43.
[34]Ong Chat Pang v. Valliappa Chettiar [1971] 1 LNS 96; [1971] 1 MLJ 224, FC.
[35] Teo Keang Sood and Khaw Lake Tee, Land Law in Malaysia: Cases and Commentary, 2nd edn (Kuala
Lumpur, Singapore and Hong Kong: Butterworths Asia, 1995), p 139.
[37] Teo Keang Sood and Khaw Lake Tee, Land Law in Malaysia: Cases and Commentary, 2nd edn (Kuala
Lumpur, Singapore and Hong Kong: Butterworths Asia, 1995), p 139.
[38] Wong, David, Tenure and Land Dealings in the Malay States, (Singapore: Singapore University Press,
1975), at pp 380-387.
[39] Teo Keang Sood and Khaw Lake Tee, Land Law in Malaysia: Cases and Commentary, 2nd edn (Kuala
Lumpur, Singapore and Hong Kong: Butterworths Asia, 1995), p 139. See per Mohamed Dzaiddin JC (as
he then was) in a tenancy case of Than Kok Leong v. Low Kim Hai [1983] CLJ 907 (Rep); [1983] 1 CLJ 95;
[1983] 1 MLJ 187 where he comments on the Specific Relief Act 1950 (Revised 1974), s. 26(b).
[41] Sihombing, J, National Land Code: A Commentary, 2nd edn (Kuala Lumpur and Singapore: Malayan
Law Journal, 1992), p 804
[45] Sihombing, J, National Land Code: A Commentary, 2nd edn (Kuala Lumpur and Singapore: Malayan
Law Journal, 1992), p 816
[46] See the National Land Code 1965, s. 340(2)(a), (b), (c) respectively.
[48]Kassarmal & Anor v. Valliappa Chettiar [1954] 1 LNS 33; [1954] 1 MLJ 119, PC.
[52][2005] 4 CLJ 328; [2005] 6 AMR 123, see also Mok Yong Chuan v. Mok Yong Kong & Anor [2005] 1
LNS 319; [2006] 7 MLJ 526 and Liew Yok Yin v. AGS Harta Sdn Bhd [2006] 3 CLJ 787; [2006] 7 MLJ 49.
Refer PK Nathan "Nightmare For Registered Owners of Landed Property" [2002] CLJ xxiii. Teo Keang
Sood "Demise of Deferred Indefeasibility Under the Malaysia Torrens System?"(Singapore Journal of
Legal Studies, 2002), pp 403-408.
[53]Civil Appeal No. 02(f)-19-2009(C); This appeal was heard by a coram of Zaki Tun Azmi CJ, Alauddin
Mohd Sheriff, PCA; Arifin Zakaria, CJM; Zulkefli Ahmad Makinudin, FCJ; James Foong Cheng Yuen, FCJ.
[54]Chiew Lip Seng v. Perwira Habib Bank Malaysia Sdn Bhd [1999] 5 CLJ 112; [1999] 1 AMR 789.
[55]V Letchumanan v. Central Malaysian Finance Bhd [1980] 1 LNS 88; [1980] 2 MLJ 96, FC.
[56]Tan Yen Yee & Anor v. Equity Finance Corp Bhd [1990] 3 CLJ 207 (Rep); [1990] 2 CLJ 857; [1991] 1
MLJ 237.
[57] The National Land Code 1965, s. 436, Sch 10 provides for supplementary provision as to forms and
procedure in which inter alia it states that it is not necessary for a person to use a form printed under s.
376; instead a form which is reproduced in print or typescript may be used. The forms are available from
the Government Printers.
[58] Koperasi Pegawai Pentadbiran dan Pengurusan Tanah Malaysia Berhad, Malaysia, Dept of Director
General of Lands and Mines, Malaysia, A manual on the National Land Code (Kuala Lumpur: Koperasi
Pegawai Pentadbiran dan Pengurusan Tanah Malaysia Berhad in cooperation with Dept of Director
General of Lands and Mines, 2002), p 211.
[59] The National Land Code 1965, Schedule 5 provides specifically for persons authorised to attest
instruments of dealings.
[60] See the Malay Reservations Enactment of the Federated Malay States, the Malay Reservations
Enactment of Johore, the Malay Reservations Enactment of Terengganu, Enactment No 63 (Malay
Reservations) of Kedah, the Malay Reservations Enactment of Kelantan, the Malay Reservations
Enactment of Perlis, Enactment No 63 (Malay Reservations) of Kedah, the Malay Reservations
Enactment of Perlis and land that is subject to the National Land Code (Penang and Malacca) Titles Act
1963, Part VIII. See the National Land Code 1965, Schedule 10 para 3.
[64]National Land Code 1965, s. 294(1)(a), A Manual on the National Land Code (Koperasi Pegawai
Pentradbiran dan Pengurusan Tanah Malaysia Berhad, 2002), at p 214.
[68]National Land Code 1965, s. 294(2). For details of documents to be submitted for each type of
dealing refer to A Manual on the National Land Code (Kuala Lumpur: Koperasi Pegawai Pentadbiran dan
Pengurusan Tanah Malaysia Berhad, 2002), p 215.
[69] The Presentation Book is one of the features of the Torrens system in which the Presentation Book
must record an entry with a short description of every instrument presented for registration; amongst
others it must include the name and address of the persons or body by whom it was presented and the
time of presentation: see the National Land Code 1965, s. 295.
[72] Refer Seah Choon Chye, "A National Land Code?" in INSAF (Journal of Malaysian Bar (2006) xxxv No
1), p 63 for comments on the practices of certain land offices which have caused inconveniences to legal
practitioners.
[73] Apart from the conditions in s. 301 of the National Land Code 1965, that section also requires that,
before presentation of the documents for registration is made, the rent due in respect of that particular
land must be paid.
[75]Mohammad Bin Buyong v. Pemungut Hasil Tanah, Gombak [1981] 1 LNS 114; [1982] 2 MLJ 53.
[76] Teo Keang Sood and Khaw Lake Tee, Land Law in Malaysia: Cases and Commentary, 2nd edn (Kuala
Lumpur, Singapore and Hong Kong: Butterworths Asia, 1995), p 95.
[77]National Land Code 1965, s. 304. See Wong, David, Tenure and Land Dealing in the Malay States
(Singapore : Singapore University Press, 1975), p 319. See also Mohammad Bin Buyong v. Pemungut
Hasil Tanah, Gombak [1981] 1 LNS 114; [1982] 2 MLJ 53.
[79]Gibbs v. Messer [1891] AC 248, PC; Boonsom Boonyanit v. Adorna Properties Sdn Bhd [1997] 3 CLJ
17; [1997] 2 MLJ 62, CA; Au Meng Nam & Anor v. Ung Yak Chew & Ors 2007 [CA].
[80]Pow Hing & Anor v. Registrar of Titles, Malacca [1980] 1 LNS 120; [1981] 1 MLJ 155, FC, at p 160.
[81] The provisions of the National Land Code 1965, ss. 417 and 418 provide for applications to court
and the Registrar is required to comply with court orders.
[83]ARPL Palaniappa Chettiar v. PL AR Letchumanan Chettiar & Anor [1981] 1 LNS 160; [1982] 1 MLJ 232
at p 234.
[84]National Land Code 1965, s. 207(1); Crowley v. Templeman [1914] 17 CLR 457.
[90]Crowley v. Templeton [1914] 17 CLR 460 at 466-467; Putz v. Registrar of Titles [1928] VLR 348 at
361.
[91]Standard Chartered Bank v. Yap Sing Yoke & Ors [1989] 2 CLJ 500 (Rep); [1989] 1 CLJ 530; [1989] 2
MLJ 49.
[93]Island & Peninsular Development Berhad & Anor v. Legal Adviser, Kedah & Ors [1973] 1 LNS 52;
[1973] 2 MLJ 71.
[95] Das, S K, The Torrens System in Malaysia (Singapore: Malayan Law Journal, 1963), p 397.
[96] Ibid, p 330.
[97]Island & Peninsular Development Berhad & Anor v. Legal Adviser, Kedah & Ors [1973] 1 LNS 52;
[1973] 2 MLJ 71.
[98] Shukri, I M, Director of Research & Development, "Insights on the Proposed Insurance Principle of
Malaysian Torrens System" (Putrajaya: Department of Director General of Land and Mines (Federal)
(DGLM), 2008), paper prepared for a Briefing Session on October 18, 2008 to explore the possibility of
introducing Title Insurance System in Malaysia.
[99] Supt Shuhaimi Bin Othman, Commercial Crime Department of the Royal Malaysian Police Force,
"Penipuan dalam Penyelesaian Urusan Tanah: Isu dan Penyelesaian", paper presented at the Peninsular
Malaysian Land Administrators Convention 2008.
[100] Discussion with Tn Hj Hasnol officer at the Kuala Kelawang Land Office, District of Jelebu, Negeri
Sembilan on Friday October 17, 2008; refer to the paper by ACP Tan Kok Liang, "Property Rights under
the Malaysian Constitution: Should Fingerprinting be Introduced in Property/Land Dealings", paper
presented at the 14th Malaysian Law Conference organised by the Malaysian Bar Council, Kuala Lumpur
Convention Centre, November 2007.
[101] "Sistem PTG diceroboh, Sindiket Palsukan Dokumen Pendaftaran Berkomputer", reported in
Utusan Malaysia March 14, 2007.
[102]Lau Teck San @ Lau Beng Cheng & 3 Ors v. SK Song [1995] 2 CLJ 425.
[103] Blair, Peter, Frank Ticehurst, K Nettle, Baalman and Wells, Land Titles Office Practice, 3rd edn
(Australia: Law Book Co, 1989), p 223.
[104] Hogg, James, The Australian Torrens System with Statutes (London: W Clowes, 1905); Stein,
Robert and Stone, Margaret, Torrens Title (Sydney: Butterworths, 1991), p 17; Whalan, D J, "The origins
of the Torrens System and its introduction in New Zealand", in Hinde, G W (ed), The New Zealand
Torrens System Centennial Essays (Wellington: New Zealand, 1991), p 1; Fox, "The story behind the
Torrens System", (1950) 23 Australian Law Journal 489.
[105] Refer generally to the interesting discussion by Hayes, B E, "The Certificate of Correctness under
the Land Transfer Act" (Registrar-General of Land Information Paper 2000/01, Land Information New
Zealand, 2006).
[106] Watkins, Paul, "Fraud In Conveyancing", a paper presented at the Australian Institute of
Conveyancers 2007 National Conference, March 2007, Internet edition accessed on August 20, 2009,
http://www.stewarttitlelimited.com.au/multimedia/relatedmedia/Fraud_
in_Conveyancing_AIC_National_Conference_Paper_2007.pdf. See also Department of Lands FAQ "How
do I verify the identity of a person claiming a right to deal with land"?
http://www.lands.nsw.gov.au/valuation/faqs/proof_of_ identity?SQ_DESIGN_NAME. See Macdermott,
Bruce, "Lawcover Risk Management - Managing the Risk of Identity Fraud" Law Society Journal,
November 2005, at p 53; Low, Roushi, "Opportunities for fraud in the proposed Australian National
Electronic Conveyancing System: Fact or Fiction? (2006) Murdoch University Electronic Journal of Law
13(2), pp 225-253; Bransgrove, Matthew, "Mortgage Law: What can solicitors do to reduce mortgage
fraud?", New South Wales Law Society Journal (November 2004) at p 52.
[107] Das, S K, The Torrens System in Malaysia (Singapore: Malayan Law Journal, 1963), p 106.
[108] Daniel Steudler and Ian P. Williamson, "A Framework for Benchmarking Land Administration
Systems," paper presented, Commission 7 Annual Meeting, 11-16 June 2001, Gavle, Sweden Organised
by SLF, Sveriges Lantmatareforening in conjunction with Swedesurvey AB 1; Refer also AusIndustry
(1995). Benchmarking Self Help Manual - Your Organization's Guide to Achieving Best Practice.
AusIndustry-Best Practice Program, second edition 1995, Australian Government Publishing Service,
Canberra, ISBN 0 644 43110 5.
[109] Steudler, Danial and Williamson, Ian P (2000) A framework for Benchmarking Land Administration
Systems - FIG XX11 International Congress, Washington, D.C.
http://www.fao.org/DOCREP/005/X2038E/x2038e01.htm#TopOfPage
[110] Inventory of Land Administration Systems in Europe and North America (2005) HM Land Registry
London on behalf of UN ECE Working Party on Land Administration http://www.
unece.org/hlm/publications.htm#WPLA