Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 5

(i)

Section 6 prohibits only English Common law


Devi v Francis

In some cases, courts has disagreed that sec 6 of the civil law act
prohibits the application of equitable rules to land matters
The ct decided the case based on the doctrine of equitable estoppel
and recognized that the tenancy is a kind of irrevocable license until
the vendor offered to sell the land to the purchaser and the
purchaser refused and then one month notice can be given to
revoke the tenancy
Ct held: the land law in England is one thing and equity is another
matter.
Doctrine of irrevocable license is recognized but not apply in this
case

Woo Yok Wan v Loo Pek Chee


Ajaib Singh J, section 6 do not exclude the English equitable
principle.. What is precluded by section 6 is the English Law relating
to tenure or conveyance or assurance of or succession to any
immovable property or any estate, rights or interest therein but the
section does not in any way preclude the application of the English
principles relating to equitable interest in land.

Alfred Templeton v Low Yat Holdings Sdn. Bhd


-

The pf was entitled for easement


Held that NLC shall not affect the contractual operation of any
transaction relating to alienated land and further of the view that
this subsection provide authority for liberal application of equity
whenever there is a basis of that.
It is clear that the ct never accepted the effect of sec 6 as a whole
but rather to halt any matters which has a direction relation to the
land matters.
Wong Ah Yan v Lee Joo Eng

View Accepting Equity


Motor Emporium v Arumugam
The court has an inherent jurisdiction to do justice between the
parties and thus apply equity.

Karuppiah Chettiar v Subramaniam


By virtue of Section 206(3) NLC, the courts may still enforce in
personam claims relating to unregistered dealings.

Recognition of the trust concept


-The creation of a trust over land is recognised under the Trustee Act
1949 and the NLC. The trust concept accepts the concept of legal
and equitable ownership of land.

(ii) Section 6 prohibits both English Common law and


rules of equity
Datin Siti Hajar v Murugasu
-

P is the Registered Proprietor of 2 pieces of land. One of the lands


has a road frontage with a public road which leads to town. D is the
owner of the adjacent land.
Held: The effect of Sec 6 seems to be to oust the application of
common-law and rules of equity relating to land tenure, transfer or
transmission of immoveable property
T Damodaran v Choe Kuan Him

The National Land Code applies to Malaysia the Torrens system of


registration of title of land. The whole purpose of the system is to
get away from the complicated system of rules which in England

regulate dealings with land, particularly those relating to such


matters as notice of encumbrances and trust.

Chin Choy v Collector of Stamp Duties


-

Held : though the vendor became in equity, a trustee for the


purchaser of an estate sold was a peculiarity of English land law
nevertheless held that section 6 of the CLO prohibits the reception
of any English law pertaining to land matters in Malaysia
UMBC v Pemungut Hasil Tanah Kota Tinggi [1984] 2 MLJ
87 PC

Issue: whether English Equitable rules realting to release against


forfeiture had expressly stated that sec 6 wide enough to cover the
said principles of equity.

the equitable rules were precluded by the section from being


applied. However, the ct went further to state that English equitable
principles of general application are applicable to land matter in
Malaysia so long as their application is not inconsistent with the
stated aims and objective of the Malaysian Torrens system as
embodied in the express provision of NLC.

Therefore, sec 6 even though clearly bar the application of


equitable principle in realtion to tenure and conveyancing but it
does not have any effect to the applicability of English equitable
principles of general application.

Tan Wee Choon v Ong Peck Seng


Common law and equitable rights previously procurable in this
country are no longer available since the passing of section 3(1) and
6 of the Civil Law Act 1956
Oriental Bank v Chup Seng Restaurant (Butterworth) Sdn.

Bhd.
The FC held : The Code does not prohibit the creation of an
equitable charge, the Code being a complete and comprehensive
code of law governing land.

Effect of Section 6 (Judicial Approaches)

Tengku Jaafar v. The State of Pahang


The Lord President held that the land law in Pahang before the
Introduction of the Torrens system was Islamic law of Shafii School.

Judicial Approaches to Sec 206 & Sec 340


(a)

Section 206(3)

The provisions of NLC requiring dealings to be effected in the statutorily


prescribed manner shall not affect the contractual operation of any
transaction relating to alienated land or any interest therein.
Alfred Templeton v Low Yat Holdings Sdn. Bhd.
Held:
The NLC s 206(3) shall not affect the contractual operation of
any transaction relating to alienated land and further of the view that this
subsection provides authority for the liberal application of equity
whenever there is a basis for that.

Karuppiah Chettiar v Subramaniam


By virtue of Section 206(3) NLC, the courts may still enforce in personam
claims relating to unregistered dealings.

(b)

Section 340(4)(b)

Ong Chat Pang v Valliappa Chettiar

The Equitable concept of Bare-Trust which states that the moment you
have a valid contract for sale, the vendor becomes in equity, a trustee for
the purchaser, was applied by the court.