Land Law (2)

GLUP3033 LAND LAW I

Application of
English Equitable
Principles into
Torrens System in
Malaysia

PREPARED BY
ADAM ZULHAKIM BIN AB AZIZ

264695

PREPARED FOR
MADAM NAJAH INANI BINTI ABDUL JALIL

17TH NOVEMBER 2020

TABLE OF 1
CONTENTS
WHAT IS TORRENS SYSTEM IN MALAYSIA?

Explaining on how the Torrens system was
introduced in Malaysia and its development through
the years of being implemented.

2

THE RECEPTION OF ENGLISH EQUITABLE
PRINCIPLES IN MALAYSIA

Reviewing on how the implementation of English
Equity works in Malaysia through the use of Civil
Law Act 1956.

3

FIRST VIEW: SECTION 6 OF CIVIL LAW ACT
1956

It is said that Malaysia is strict when it comes to
encroaching the English Equity into land matters;
transfer, charge, lease and more land dealings. The
question is what, why , where, when and how it is
happening in a country where English system is the
base of its current system.

4

SECOND VIEW: WILKINSON & ORS V
KANNAMAL & ANOR (1951)

But our law is not rigid, right? What is the court's
says in this matter on using English equity inside our
land dealings?

5

EQUITABLE LAND TRANSACTION AND
CONCEPTS RECOGNIZED IN MALAYSIA

Light discussion on several equitable principles; the
"Bare Trust' Concept, Proprietory Estoppel and Jual
Jani Transaction

6

CONCLUSION AND REFERENCES

PAGE 1

Chapter 1:

WHAT IS TORRENS SYSTEM IN

MALAYSIA?

Torrens system existed in Malaysia way on Torrens System is famous due to its
the time of British still occupying Malaya. abundant of characteristic that give
When the Deeds System is considered to easement to parties in land dealing. One
have too much defects on its application of the characteristics under Torrens
in Malaya, the Englishmen decided to Systems is the indefeasibility of title. The
introduce the Torrens System. system confers indefeasibility title upon
registration made by the party involved.
The Torrens system is an Australian system Meaning here, if a land is registered under
in handling land dealings. It is a system someone’s name, no one can defeat the
whereby a title of a land and interest over title owned by the registered party over
a land is depended upon registration and the land. Technically, registration of land
not to any instruments inter-parts. The title is a recognition over one’s possession
system was absorbed into Malaya, Sabah and ownership over the land. This
and Sarawak under the National Land characteristic is also protected under the
Code 1965 and National Land Code National Land Code; namely Section 340.
(Malacca and Penang Title) 1963.
According to the case of Sime Bank v
Mohd Hassan bin Sulaiman , the
establishment of Torrens System under
both Codes are for uniformity of the land
laws.

This section basically protects the right of (Article 1: Section 340 of National Land Code 1965)
the registered proprietor of the land and
somehow upholds the implementation of Clearly, it can be said that Torrens System
the Torrens System in Malaysia. A person recognized by National Land Code 1965 confers
who did not register his or her name under indefeasibility of title that no one can defeat it. But,
the said land title cannot claim over the can English Equitable Principle defeat the title?
land unless he or she can prove that the Knowing that equity exists as an instrument to
registration is made due to fraud, forgery, soften the harshness of law.
misrepresentation, mistake or using a void
instrument . The protection of title given
by the Section 340 is used by the court to
make judgement on matter touches on
land dealings. In the case of Dr Ti Teow
Seow & Ors v Pendaftar Geran-Geran
Tanah Negeri Selangor , the learned
judge stated that registration of the land
title gave and extinguished the title under
the National Land Code 1965.
Registration is the foundation of Torrens
System.

PAGE 2

Chapter 2:

THE RECEPTION OF ENGLISH
EQUITABLE PRINCIPLE IN MALAYSIA

As a country that once occupied by the British, Malaysia’s current administration
and legal system is often to be said being influenced by the British’s. Well, it is not
wrong. According to the Section 3 and 5 of Civil Law Act 1957, Malaysia still can use
common law when handling dispute in the court but only on exceptional
circumstances provided by the law.

(Article 2: Section 3 of Civil Law Act 1956)

section 3 of the Act above basically And if it is due to the lacunae existed,
explains about the acceptance of the court must later make sure that
Malaysia to use common law, the the equity taken must fit the local
rules of equity and statute of general circumstances.
application within a certain period of
time stated inside the statute. But The issue in regards of the Section 3
this Section must be read together and 5 of the Civil Law Act 1956 arises
with Section 5 of the same act. whether the application of the
common law and rules of equity can
Section 5 practically exists to be used in every dispute handled by
elaborate more on the application of the court. The Civil Law Act 1956
the equity in Malaysia. Limitation has further discussed the issue under
been put whereby the court may only Section 6 of Civil Law Act 1956 where
uses the common law or rules of another Limitation has been put
equity in the event of the absence of there. Section 6 of Civil Law Act 1956
laws, or called as lacunae. states that;

PAGE 3

(Article 3: Section 6 of Civil Law Act 1956)

Section 6 above has New legal issue arises
when the court begin to
generally placed a ask; does Malaysia adopts a
strict use of Section 6 of
limitation against the the Civil Law Act 1956 to
uphold the reception of
court where any dealings the Torrens system in
Malaysia?
involving tenure,
The Malaysian legal system
conveyance, assurance of which has many courts
cause many decisions and
or succession to any views from judges to be
taken into account in
immovable property or any placing the status of
strictness of the court in
estate, right or interest using Section 6 of the Civil
Law Act in Malaysian land
cannot be decided using system. There are two
views in relation to the
law of England. The rules application of English
Equitable Principles into
of equity are one of the Torrens system in
Malaysia;
branches of English law,
A) First view: Section 6 of
causing the reception of the Civil Law Act 1965

its principle not to cover B) Second view: Wilkinson
& Ors v Kannamal
matters falling under & Anor (1951) 17 MLJ 99

Section 6. Land matters

are said to be included in

Section 6 because the

proviso in it states about

'immovable property'. As

stipulated by Section 5 of

the National Land Code,

land is immovable

property causing Section 6

of the Civil Law Act 1956

should be applied in a civil

suit involving land matters.

PAGE 4

Chapter 3:

FIRST VIEW: SECTION 6 OF CIVIL LAW
ACT 1956

As described in the previous subtopic, it clearly
states that Section 6 of the Civil Law Act 1956
plays an important role in ensuring that key
features of the Torrens System involving land
affairs will not be confused with English law
such as rules and principles of equity.

The point here is that the court uses strict
measures to ensure that the Torrens system
recognized by Malaysia's own National Land
Code is protected. In the case of Pemungut
Hasil Tanah Kota v United Malaysian Banking
Corporation Berhad (1981) 2 MLJ 264, it is
stated that;

“The National Land Code is a complete and comprehensive
code of law governing the tenure of land in Malaysia and
the incidents thereof of it, as well as other important
matters affecting the land there, and there is no room for
the importation of any rules of English law in that field
except in so far as the Code itself may expressly provide for
this.”

(Article 4: Federal Court’s ratio decidendi on UMBC’s case)

“The decision of the case was made with the
views from the Federal Court at that time. The
decision came out when the court was faced
with a legal issue on whether English Law can
be used in forfeiture process even though
there is already a specific provision on the
matters discussed inside the National Land
Code. From here, the Section 6 of Civil Law
Act 1956 is in need to be used by the court in
order to give their verdict. As the said section
already stated that no English law can be
used when dealings on land matters are
made, the court must follow the requirements
of the law that has been enacted.

From here, the Section 6 of Civil Law PAGE 5
Act 1956 is in need to be used by the
court in order to give their verdict. As The decision made by the judge
the said section already stated that openly stated that the
no English law can be used when implementation of Section 3 (1) of the
dealings on land matters are made, Civil Law Act 1965, to be read with
the court must follow the Section 6 of the same Act, and the
requirements of the law that has been National Land Code 1956 has put a
enacted. barrier in the use of English Law in
the Malaysian land system
Based on general opinion, the
remarks made by the judges inside The controversial remark made by the
the Federal Court on this matter have judges inside the court has been
clearly stated how complete the adopted by other judges in the future
Malaysian National Land Code is cases (Ainul Jaria Maidin, 2008). For
causing unnecessary for the public as example, the case of Tan Khien Toong
well as any judicial practitioner to v Hoong Bee & Co (1987) 1 MLJ 387
look at foreign law only to solve relied on the UMBC’s case decision
internal issues. whereby Wan Suleimen CJ expressly
stated that the decision in UMBC’s
. case was used by judges in other
cases to affirmed their decision in
stating that any equitable principles
or remedies used for land matters is
no longer practicable. Thus, it can be
said that the UMBC’s case, together
with Section 6 of Civil Law Act 1965
and National Land Code 1956 opposed
the use of English Equity in land
matters.

PAGE 6

Chapter 4:

SECOND VIEW: WILKINSON & ORS V

KANNAMAL & ANOR (1951) 17 MLJ 99

“The Torrens System is a system of conveyancing; it does
not abrogate the rules of equity; it alters the application of

particular rules of equity but only so far as necessary to
achieve its own special object.”

(Article 5: Judge’s decision in Wilkinson’s case)

Based on the first view above, it can be said Aside from the landmark case of Wilkinson &
that court takes a very strict approach in Ors v Kannamal & Anor (1951) 17 MLJ 99, the
application of English Law when it comes to court also has an inherent jurisdiction to do
matters involving Torrens system and land justice in a dispute they handled (Ainul Jaria
dealings. The issue arises where does there Maidin, 2008).
really no equitable principles or remedies
that court can give under the name of rules 'INHERENT JURISDICTION'
of equity inside any land matters? TO DO JUSTICE

The above statement comes from the case of The meaning here is that the court needs to
Wilkinson & Ors v Kannamal & Anor (1951) 17 uphold the supremacy of justice in solving
MLJ 99. This statement was made by Taylor J problems because one who holds power must
when deciding for a case relating to the land use it wisely. Upholding justice somehow
matters. showcases the fairness of the judges.

In general, this case states that the rules of The connection between this jurisdiction and
equity can still be applied in land matters, the rules of equity is that the court is to
despite Section 6 of the Civil Law Act 1956 make sure that justice exists while making
put a stop over the application. their own decision. As equity serves as a tool
to soften the harshness of the law, somehow
The reason for Section 3 of the Civil Law Act this inherent jurisdiction allows the court to
1956 is introduced is to make sure that any use equity in solving certain matters inside
existence of lacunae in law may allow the land disputes.
court to use the law of England. So, if there is
confusion or lack of law in certain parts of
land matters, the court plays an important
role in ensuring to use the rules of equity or
any English law according to the limitation
set up by Torrens system under National
Land Code 1965 and Civil Law Act 1956.

PAGE 7

There are two cases that can be reviewed Based on both cases mentioned, it can be
when talking about this part, where one of said that as long as the rules of equity does
them is The Motor Emporium v Arumugan not defeat the general idea and application of
(1933) 2 MLJ 276. In the case, the court stated Torrens system under National Land Code
that the rules of equity can only be used or 1965, then it can be used by the court. Like in
applied by the court as long as the the Wilkinson's case, the judge must play a
application did not intervene with the way on big role in making sure to fill the lacunae of
how Torrens system works. The judge also the law and at the same time to limit the use
stated that every court must used their of rules of equity in regards of land matters.
inherent jurisdiction to do justice when it is
only necessary to do so. Meaning here, even Another reason on why the equitable
though an already enacted provision on land principle can be used in Torrens system of
matters has already existed, somehow the Malaysia is due to Section 205(1) and 206 of
court may use this jurisdiction, as their moral National Land Code 1965. According to the
obligation on upholding justice to ensure book of Principles of Malaysian Land Law
fairness in making decision. (2008), it is said that these two provisions are
the reason on why the judges still trying to
The use of inherent jurisdiction also can be attempt on using equitable principles in
seen in the case Devi v Francis (1969) 2 MLJ dealing with land matters.
169 whereby the case touched on issue of
tenancy agreement with the involvement of Section 205 (1) basically states that any land
equity. The registered proprietor of the land dealings that only can be affected under the
wanted to terminate the agreement as soon Code are only made through Part 14 to 17 and
as he had gotten the ownership of the land no others. The word 'No Others' brings the
but the tenant had already bought a house means of land transaction that is not
with tenancy of the ground. According to the registered under the Code. An issue arises
Torrens system, the registered proprietor whether an unregistered dealing can defeat a
can do what he wanted due to indefeasibility land transaction. In my opinion, the answer is
of title but the court invoked the equitable yes. The key feature of the Torrens system in
estoppel to stop the registered proprietor in indefeasibility of title protected under
doing so. Chang Min Tat CJ said that even Section 340 of the Code and also Section 206
though the argument between both parties (1) of the Code somehow defeated every
included the land dealings, but the tenancy arrangement of an unregistered land
agreement can be said as a contractual transaction.
arrangement, and one cannot breach to its
terms and condition. But, rules of equity exist to provide remedies.
In Section 206 (3) of the Code, it said that
When a matter of contract arose, the court nothing in subsection one of Section 206
may intervene the dispute by using equitable shall affect the contractual arrangement of
principle, and in this case the court used the any transaction. Meaning here, the National
equitable estoppel. Land Code somehow allows the use of the
equity in the land matters that involved
contractual arrangement in it.

PAGE 8

Chapter 5:

EQUITABLE LAND TRANSACTION AND

CONCEPT RECOGNISED IN MALAYSIA

After analysing and looking at the views on the application of English Equitable Principle in
Torrens system of Malaysia, it can be deduced that at some point, the court may come to a
flexible approach in implying the rules of equity in certain land disputes. But, the use of rules of
equitable principle or remedies must have its own limitation and not defeating the purpose and
features of the Torrens system. Thus, there are several concept and equitable principle that is
considered to be permissible in Malaysia.

THE 'BARE TRUSTEE' From my opinion, the Section 6 of Civil Law
CONCEPT Act 1956 is not absolute in the sense of
upholding justice and fairness. If the case of
This concept is one of the doctrines bare-trust concept is used as an example, it
established under the English Equitable can be said that the court is trying to protect
principles. It is originated from the case of the right of the bona fide purchaser from
Lysaght v Edwards (1876) 2 CHD 499, being neglected due to the strictness of laws,
whereby the court defined ‘Bare-Trust’ namely National Land Code 1965 and Civil
concept as a situation where a registered Law Act 1956.
proprietor will become a bare trustee over
the land if a purchaser has paid to him an Malaysian Torrens System has long adopted
amount of money to buy the land. Even this concept in terms of land involving sale
though the name on the registration of land and purchase agreement. This can be seen
title is still not changed, the original through the cases that have been brought to
registered proprietor does not have any court for the same issue; whether the
ownership left onto the land and only keep it concept of bare trustee is accepted in
as a bare trustee for the purchaser. Malaysia Torrens system?

From the definition above, it can be said that One of the earliest cases is Ong Chat Pang &
in this concept, registration of title on the Anor v Valliappa Chettiar (1971) 1 MLJ 224,
said land is no longer protected by the key whereby the court applied that when a valid
feature of Torrens system; indefeasibility of sale and purchase agreement has been
title. Somehow, the application of the system signed, by equity, the seller will automatically
under National Land Code has already been become a trustee over the land for the
defeated by this equitable principle of bare- purchaser. The decision was later confirmed
trustee. Issue arises whether the Section 6 of and applied in the Supreme Court in Dr
Civil Law Act 1956 is absolute or not. Michael Atun Wee’s case (1994) 3 MLJ 594.

PAGE 9

Over time, the concept of 'Bare-Trust' is still 'JUAL JANJI'
used in the Malaysian Torrens system. It can TRANSACTION
be seen in the case of Datuk Harris Mohd
Salleh v. Seck Mun Foo [1999] 2 CLJ 545 Jual janji is a sale with a promise. Professor
whereby the court used this concept and Salleh Buang describes jual janji transaction
decided for the Plaintiff. as a sale and purchase agreement made
between the land owner and the buyer but at
“[4] The learned judge rightly concluded the same time putting a fixed term for a
in his grounds of judgment that a person repurchase of the land. The jual janji
who has parted with his land and has transaction somehow is considered to be the
received the purchase money, as the same as English mortgage rules. During the
defendant had in the present case, is term of contract, the buyer has the
merely a bare trustee of the land. His possession over the land. Under the Jual janji
name may appear on the land title but transaction, there are two types of contracts;
he may assert no legal rights over it purely contract where time is an essence and
because the equitable and beneficial purely contract without time as an essence.
ownership has passed to the buyer. In the first type of contracts, the equity of
Since the plaintiff had proved that the redemption cannot be applied by any of the
defendant had sold the land… the parties if they passed the fixed term of
defendant was only a bare trustee of repurchase. The case of Haji Abdul Rahman v
the land even though his name Still Mohamed Hassan (1917) AC 209 already
appeared on the land title.” explained that the equity of redemption
cannot be used as we have our own law on
(Article 5: Datuk Harris Mohd Salleh v. Seck Mun Foo ) land-related matter. Plus, repayment after
expiry date cannot be allowed in the
Based on the decision issued by the court contract.
above, it can be said that the rules of equity
have been applied by the judge. In this case, But it is different with the second type of the
the equity that has been used is equitable contract in jual janji transaction. In the case
and beneficial ownership or 'Bare Trustee'. It of Ismail bin Haji Embong v Lau Hong Kan
is clear here that the court wants to take [1970] 2 MLJ213 HC, the court held that the
care of the welfare of the Plaintiff who has time is not the essence of the agreement,
purchased the land even though the land considering that the conduct of the parties
purchased has not yet been registered. Later, that still paying the monthly interest of the
the decision of this court was affirmed by land to the other party. Even though time is
future case; Tenaga Nasional Berhad v Yeoh originally the essence of the contract, the
Siew Hee & Ors. [2017] MLJU 641 whereby the conduct of the part changed it and made it as
court also declared the seller as a bare no longer so. As such, the parties who always
trustee when the purchaser had paid for the pay the monthly interest can still repurchase
land based on market price. the land even if it is already passed the expiry
date.

PAGE 10

In the case of Ahmad bin Omar v Haji Salleh One noted case that always being relate with
bin Shaik Osman [1987] 1 MLJ 338, the court this equitable principle is Devi v Francis
held that in a jual janji transaction, the (1969) 2 MLJ 169. The court inside this case
conduct of the parties may pass the time as mentioned that there is a distinction
an essence off the contract. between ‘law of England’ and ‘equity’ under
Civil Law Ordinance 1956 and under the
PROPRIETORY ESTOPPEL purview of Section 3 of the Ordinance the
court shall use rules of equity in any matter
Proprietory estoppel is one of the branches arising; lacunae and fits the local
under equitable estoppel. It is used by the circumstances. The case touched on issue of
court in order to estopped someone from tenancy agreement with the involvement of
exercising his legal right due to past actions equity. The registered proprietor of the land
or any existing contractual interest in the wanted to terminate the agreement as soon
said land. According to Mohsin Hingun and as he had gotten the ownership of the land
Wan Azlan Ahmad (2013), it said that but the tenant had already bought a house
proprietory estoppel was founded to estop a with tenancy of the ground. Chang Min Tat
person in applying his right to do something CJ said that even though the argument
as his action on doing so may cause between both parties included the land
circumstances; unseen or seen. dealings, but the tenancy agreement can be
said as a contractual arrangement, and one
This equitable estoppel is a discretionary cannot breach to its terms and condition.
power of the court to grant for the party in When a matter of contract arose, the court
dispute. In the case of Chin Chye @ Chew may intervene the dispute by using equitable
Chan Hock & Ors v Chew Ah Hwa (Pengerusi principle, and in this case the court used the
bagi Persatuan Khiam Thye Chew Seng Heng equitable estoppel.
Wah Siah Teluk Anson, Perak mengikut
seksyen 9(c) Akta Pertubuhan 166) [2016] Over time, Malaysia still accepts the use of
MLJU 1229, it was affirmed that the court has proprietory estoppel in cases where the facts
a wide discretion on deciding whether an are almost the same; contract of tenancy on
equity should be applied or not. If it touches a land between tenant and registered
on matters of proprietory estoppel, the court proprietor. It can be seen in the case of
mentioned that the basis to decide whether Sutera Harbour Golf & Country Club Bhd v
the estoppel should be given or not is on that Omega Brilliance Sdn Bhd & Anor [2019] 7
it would be unconscionable for a land owner MLJ 770 where the Court granted the
to retain the benefit of the expenditure Defendant the right of proprietory estoppel
without appropriate compensation and avoid over the building he occupied in the land of
unjust enrichment. the Plaintiff.

PAGE 11

The judges inside the case affirmed that the principle of proprietory estoppel has been used and
well-established in Malaysia Torrens system and cited Devi v Francis as one the landmarks cases
to support the statement. From the decision above, it can be said that the court may use the
rules of equity even though Section 6 of the Civil Law Act 1956 and Torrens system under
National Land Code 1965 seems to be against the action. The case also explained that this
equitable principle somehow is giving the tenant whose tenancy is coupled with an equity
remedial redress.

Even though the use of this equitable principle is allowed, there is still limitation set up by the
law and the court. For example in the case of Bebe Sakimah bt Mohd Asrof v Pendaftar Hakmilik
Negeri Perak [2020] MLJU 1747, the judges inside this case quoted the decision of Court of
Appeal in the case of Derek Victor Cawton & Anor v Fatimah Mohd Hashim [2015] 5 CLJ 788
whereby the equitable doctrine of estoppel can be used or allowed to be applied by the court
when it is trying to defeat the objective of any statute law. Clearly from this limitation, it can be
said that equity does not act above the law, but move together with it. When there is a dispute
between statute law and rules of equity, the first one shall prevail.

Other than that, the mala fide action of the applicants also may disqualify himself to be given
equitable principle. It is held in the case of Shamsudin bin Che Mat & Ors v Datuk Bandar Kuala
Lumpur [2000] 4 MLJ 177 where the applicants of the case were denied of equity due to their
illegal act which contravenes Section 425 of the National Land Code 1965 and Regulations inside
the Code. Among the examples that can be done by a person to be denied from being given
equity are squatters and trespassing on State or any alienated land.

PAGE 12

CONCLUSION

In conclusion, it can be said that equity still exist in the land matters in Malaysia. Even though
Malaysia Torrens system is already recognized under the National Land Code 1965, the court
still has the power to use the rules of equity in handling land disputes. But, the rules of equity
are not to act all supreme as it only exists to give remedy over the harshness or strictness of

the system.
We cannot take all of the features of the Torrens System from Australia and make it
compulsory in all land matters in this country. This is because, before the Torrens system was
introduced, land law in Malaysia (or known as Malaya, Sabah and Sarawak at that time) was
still under the influence of English law, Shariah law and customary law. Somehow, the court
may to be given discretion in making sure that the Torrens system adopted is fitting the local

circumstances and leads to the establishment of 'Malaysian' Torrens system.
Even though there is still discussion on whether the Section 6 of the Civil Laws Act 1956 is
absolute or not, it is best to believe that the said statutory provision is not absolute. The judges
are to play a big role in ensuring that justice and fairness is well cared. The judges also must
remember that the general rule on application of English Equitable Principles into Torrens
System in Malaysia is prohibited but in certain circumstances, it can be used. When it is used,
the judge must make sure that the application of the said equitable principle must not defeat
any key feature of Malaysian Torren system recognized inside the National Land Code 1965.
Thus, equity and land law must walk side by side and complementing each other but not to

the extent of cancelling the key feature of the Torrens system.

PAGE 13

REFERENCES

Cases referred:
Ahmad bin Omar v Haji Salleh bin Shaik Osman [1987] 1 MLJ 338
Bebe Sakimah bt Mohd Asrof v Pendaftar Hakmilik Negeri Perak [2020] MLJU 1747
Chin Chye @ Chew Chan Hock & Ors v Chew Ah Hwa (Pengerusi bagi Persatuan Khiam Thye Chew
Seng Heng Wah Siah Teluk Anson, Perak mengikut seksyen 9(c) Akta Pertubuhan 166) [2016] MLJU 1229
Datuk Harris Mohd Salleh v. Seck Mun Foo [1999] 2 CLJ 545
Derek Victor Cawton & Anor v Fatimah Mohd Hashim [2015] 5 CLJ 788
Devi v Francis (1969) 2 MLJ 169
Dr Michael Atun Wee’s case (1994) 3 MLJ 594
Dr Ti Teow Seow & Ors v Pendaftar Geran-Geran Tanah Negeri Selangor [1982] 1 MLJ 38
Haji Abdul Rahman v Mohamed Hassan (1917) AC 209
Ismail bin Haji Embong v Lau Hong Kan [1970] 2 MLJ213 HC
Lysaght v Edwards (1876) 2 CHD 499
Ong Chat Pang & Anor v Valliappa Chettiar (1971) 1 MLJ 224
Pemungut Hasil Tanah Kota v United Malaysian Banking Corporation Berhad (1981) 2 MLJ 264
Shamsudin bin Che Mat & Ors v Datuk Bandar Kuala Lumpur [2000] 4 MLJ 177
Sime Bank v Mohd Hassan bin Sulaiman [2000] 2 MLJ 158
Sutera Harbour Golf & Country Club Bhd v Omega Brilliance Sdn Bhd & Anor [2019] 7 MLJ 770
Tan Khien Toong v Hoong Bee & Co (1987) 1 MLJ 387
Tenaga Nasional Berhad v Yeoh Siew Hee & Ors. [2017] MLJU 641
The Motor Emporium v Arumugan (1933) 2 MLJ 276
Wilkinson & Ors v Kannamal & Anor (1951) 17 MLJ 99

Articles and Books referred:
Ainul Jaria Maidin, Sharifah Zubaidah Syed Abdul Kader, Bashiran Begum Haji Mobarak Ali, Nor Asiah
Mohamad, Azlinor Sufian, Raina Azah Rosli, & Fauziah Md. Nor. (2008). Principles of Malaysian Land
Law. Petaling Jaya: Lexis Nexis.

Lim, F. (n.d.). Rules Governing Competing Equities. Do they undermine the objective of the Torrens
System? Retrieved 13 November, 2020, from Academia:
https://www.academia.edu/3663533/Rules_Governing_Competing_Equities_Do_they_undermine_the_obje
ctive_of_the_Torrens_System

Mohsin Hingun, & Wan Azlan Ahmad. (2013). Equity and Trusts in Malaysia (2nd ed.). Subang Jaya:
Sweet & Maxwell Asia.

Salleh Buang. (2007). Malaysian Torrens System (2nd ed.). Shah Alam: DBP.

Sood, T. K. (1988). Equity in Land Law. Jurnal Undang-Undang, 59-86.

Sood, T. K. (2016). Role of the Equity and the Application of English Land Law in Malaysia. Canterbury
Law Review, 22, 40-56.

Wan Arfah Hamzah. (2012). A First Look at the Malaysian Legal System. Oxford Univ Pr (GB).