The Boonsom Boonyanit case
03/05/2007 NST

THE current position of the law is that the forger is capable of transferring a good title to a purchaser who buys the property in good faith and for a valuable consideration.

This law is not contained in any statute book. It arises out of a decision of the Federal Court in Adorna Properties Sdn Bhd vs Boonsom Boonyanit, written by then Chief Justice Tun Eusoff Chin and delivered on Dec 22, 2000.

Briefly, the case involved a Thai, Boonsom Boonyanit, who resided in Thailand but visited Penang from time to time.

She was the registered proprietor of a plot of land in Tanjung Bungah, Penang.

On June 11, 1989, Boonyanit’s son chanced upon an advertisement in a Thai newspaper calling upon any heir of Boonyanit to communicate with a firm of Penang solicitors. Boonyanit’s son became suspicious and got in touch with his mother’s solicitors in Penang to investigate the matter.
The investigation revealed that:

• An impostor claiming to be Sun Yok Eng @ Boonsom Boonyanit had affirmed a statutory declaration on June 18, 1988 that she had lost the original title to the land. The impostor then managed to obtain a certified copy of the title from the Land Office.

• On April 6, 1989, the impostor affirmed a second statutory declaration declaring that the names Mrs Boonsom Boonyanit and Sun Yok Eng @ Boonsom Boonyanit on the title to the land were one and the same person, that is, Mrs Boonsom Boonyanit (impostor) with a different Thai passport number.

• With this declaration, the impostor managed to perfect the registration of the memorandum of transfer in favour of Adorna.

Boonyanit then sued for the return of the land. However, the High Court ruled in favour of Adorna. On appeal, the Court of Appeal ruled in favour of Boonyanit.

Adorna then appealed, and the Federal Court held that Adorna had obtained an indefeasible title notwithstanding the forgery because it was a bona fide purchaser.

This decision has been severely criticised by lawyers and law academics as wrong.