(i) Rajamani A/P Meyappa Chettiar v Eng Beng Development San Bhd. & Ors Civil Appeal No. B-01 (W)-71-03/2015; CA (04 March 2016) Compare with PUSHPALEELA R SELVARAJAH & ANOR v. RAJAMANI MEYAPPA CHETTIAR & OTHER APPEALS [2019] 3 CLJ 441 Read also the newspaper article on 'The solicitor in a sale and purchase transaction' written by Nicholas Chang, the Star, 6 May 2019. https://bit.ly/2H5Nk7H (ii) Ngan Siong Hing v RHB Bank Bhd [2014] 2MLJ 449 (iii) Yap Ham Seow v Fatmawati bt Ismail & Ors FC [2013] 9 CLJ 577; [2014] 1 MLJ 645 Explain how the fraudulent transaction occurred and discuss what measures could have been taken by solicitors to safeguard against fraudulent scams and protect the innocent party and themselves from professional negligence. Second Part Read the following cases too: i. Kok Weng Tuck v Ambank (Malaysia) Berhad [2016] 6 CLJ 196 ii. CIMB Bank Bhd v. Ambank (M) Bhd & 2 Ors [2017] 9 CLJ 145 iii. Liputan Simfoni San Bhd v. Pembangunan Orkid Desa San Bhd [2019] 1 CLJ 183 Answer: In the Court of Appeal case of Rajamani A/P Meyappa Chettiar v Eng Beng Development Sdn Bhd. & Ors. [2016] 3 MLJ 660, Rajamani was the plaintiff and also the registered proprietor of the land, with the original IDT. Her land was transferred to the 2id defendant by fraudulent transaction without her knowledge and consent, by a fake vendor who pretended to be the plaintiff. The 2"d defendant after obtaining the land, had then sold it to a bona fide purchaser (the 1st defendant). The lawyer who acted for the fake vendor is the Bid defendant of a law firm, which is also the 4 defendant in this case, had believed that the fake vendor is actually the plaintiff herself. The 2"d defendant was represented by the 7h defendant that was tasked with getting a replacement title. When the plaintiff realised that her land was no longer under her ownership and had been transferred away, she claimed the transfer of land is null and void as she did not consented to the transfer and made a police report. She also entered the land into private caveat to prevent the transfer of land. The issue of the case if whether the 3"d and 4th defendants who had acted for the fake vendor in the sale transaction of plaintiff's land, owed a duty of care towards the plaintiff