PETER CHONG & ANOR v KHATIJAH BT MD IBRAHIM & ANOR
Many people assume that if someone’s name appears on the land title as an owner, they are free to sell their portion as they wish. But land law is not that simple — especially when the land is held under joint tenancy.
This case began with a piece of land gifted by a father to his children as joint tenants. This means they owned the land together under the principle of survivorship — whoever survives the others ultimately becomes the sole owner.
The problem arose when one of the daughters, Aina, acted on her own. Without the knowledge or consent of her sister, she signed a sale and purchase agreement and sold part of the land to a buyer. The buyer paid in full, took possession, and even built a house on the land. From the outside, the transaction appeared “done.”
However, Aina passed away before any transfer or registration of ownership could be completed. After her death, her sister was registered as the sole owner of the land by virtue of survivorship. Feeling wronged, the buyer brought the matter to court and sought specific performance, demanding that the land be transferred to them.
The court emphasised an important principle: under joint tenancy, a co-owner cannot unilaterally sell part of the land that has not been subdivided. Merely signing a sale and purchase agreement does not sever a joint tenancy. Without subdivision, registration, and the consent of all co-owners, the buyer’s rights are extremely fragile.
Even though the buyer had paid in full and occupied the land for years, land law ultimately favoured the legally recognised ownership structure. The sale and purchase agreement was held to be unenforceable.
That said, the court did not turn a blind eye altogether. While the buyer failed to obtain the land, the court held that the purchase money could not simply be forfeited. Under Section 66 of the Contracts Act 1950, the estate of the seller was required to return the benefit received — either by refunding the money or through compensation to be assessed later.
This case is also significant as it touched on the issue of hibah and Islamic law. The court held that the father’s transfer of the land was a valid inter vivos gift, and in this context, it did not contravene Islamic law. The issue was not the hibah — the issue was the unilateral sale of joint tenancy land without following proper legal procedures.
In property transactions, “payment made” does not mean “legally secure.” When land is held under joint tenancy, a single signature is not enough. Without the correct legal structure, a buyer may lose the land despite having invested time, money, and emotional commitment.
Lesson learned: Before buying land, do not look only at the price and location. Examine the type of ownership, identify who holds legal rights, and ensure the transaction is carried out fully in accordance with the law. Because in property law, one wrong step can have consequences that last a lifetime.
