Ayaz Ahmad bin Mohamed Salleh v Abd Rashid bin Mohd Idris & Anor

Appellant(s): Ayaz Ahmad Bin Mohamed Salleh

Respondent(s):

• Abd Rashid Bin Mohd Idris
• Ketua Pengarah Tanah Dan Galian Negeri Kedah Darul Aman

• YA Datuk S. Nantha Balan A/L E.S. Moorthy
• YA Dato' Ahmad Kamal Bin Md. Shahid
• YAA Datuk Seri Utama Wan Ahmad Farid Bin Wan Salleh

• The first respondent (plaintiff in the 2007 Suit) initiated a claim against the appellant (first defendant) to set aside a land transfer, alleging fraudulent use of a Power of Attorney, while the appellant counterclaimed for ownership of Malay Reserve lands, asserting his Malay status.
• The High Court in the 2007 Suit dismissed the first respondent's claim, finding no fraud, and allowed the appellant's counterclaim, ruling that the appellant was Malay and entitled to the Malay Reserve lands. This 2011 Judgment was affirmed by the Court of Appeal and Federal Court.
• More than three years later, the first respondent filed a new suit (2017 Suit) to set aside the 2011 Judgment, alleging it was obtained by fraud, specifically that the appellant gave false evidence about his Malay status and used a forged statutory declaration. The High Court in the 2017 Suit set aside the entire 2011 Judgment.

• Whether the Air Putih land was categorised as Malay Reserved Land, which would make the appellant's Malay status a critical determining factor for its ownership.
• Whether the 2011 Judgment was obtained by actual positive fraud, specifically concerning the alleged forged statutory declaration and the appellant's alleged deception about his racial identity.
• Whether the first respondent had established that the fresh evidence of fraud could not have been obtained with reasonable diligence at the time of the earlier 2007 Suit.

• The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, setting aside the High Court's decision in the 2017 Suit and reinstating the 2011 Judgment.
• The Court found that the Air Putih land was not categorised as Malay Reserved Land, thus rendering the appellant's Malay status irrelevant for the transfer of that specific land.
• The Court held that the first respondent failed to prove actual positive fraud by the appellant, noting that the appellant was not shown to be aware of the Commissioner for Oaths' status and had disclosed his Indian race in the 2007 Suit, with his explanation accepted by the trial judge.