Caveats must reflect a legitimate interest in the property; they do not bind unrelated parties' shares in the land.

Narkunavathy Sundareson J:

Introduction

[1] Enclosure 1 is the Plaintiffs application for a series of orders in respect of three caveats lodged on land held under the description of GM 15025, Lot 8942 s 36 (HS(M) 13753, PT No 5506), Bandar Kulim, Daerah Kulim, Negeri Kedah (Land).

[2] After careful consideration of the cause papers and both the written and oral submissions, this Court dismissed encl 1. The following are the reasons for the decision.

Background Facts

[3] The Plaintiff and the late Yap Kee Seng (YKS) are co-owners of the Land. YKS's 1/z share was transmitted to Yap Boon San, his administrator.

[4] The 2nd Defendant lodged a private caveat on 29 October 2014 vide Nombor Perserahan 1331/2014. This caveat lapsed after 6 years.

[5] The First Defendant lodged private caveats on 4 August 2020 vide Nombor Perserahan A715/2020 and on 28 August 2024 vide Nombor Perserahan 1191/2024.

[6] The lodgement of caveats related to the enforcement of a judgment dated 31 January 2011 and/or a prohibitory order dated 18 December 2012.

[7] The First Defendant's 2020 caveat was cancelled on 1 August 2024 and his 2024 caveat was likewise cancelled after the expiry of the 2 month period specified in Form 19C dated 19 December 2024 (KB-24NCVC-4-01/2025).

[8] Parties agreed that the Defendants would no longer lodge anymore caveats against Land or any part thereof.

Plaintiffs Complaint

[9] The Plaintiff alleged that all three Defendants were responsible for all the caveats lodged on the Land. The reason for the caveats was a judgment dated 31 January 2011 obtained by all three Defendants against YKS and one other and/or a prohibitory order dated 12 August 2012 which has since lapsed.

[10] The Plaintiff contended that he was not party to either the judgment nor the prohibitory order, neither of which gave the Defendants a caveatable interest in the Land.

[11] He referred to the First Defendant's application {Exhibit "YBH- 4" Enclosure 2) and submitted that the application was to bind the whole of the Property including his 1/2 undivided share.

[12] The Defendants1 caveats had the effect of binding the whole of the Land and/or his interest in the Land. He alleged that due to the existence of the caveats, he has been unable to deal with the Land and was therefore entitled to damages. ( Upmarket Development Sdn Bhd v. Sriera Development Sdn Bhd 2011 MarsdenLR 1305 ; 2011 MarsdenLR 4767 ; at 689).

Defendants' Response

[13] The First Defendant lodged the 2020 and 2024 caveats whereas the 2nd Defendant lodged the 2014 caveat. The First Defendant had no connection to the 2014 caveat lodged by the 2nd Defendant. Likewise, the 2nd Defendant had no connection to the 2020 and 2024 caveats lodged by the First Defendant.

[14] The 3rd Defendant had no connection at all to any of the caveats.

[15] The caveats were in relation to YKS's 14 share of the Land and had no nexus to the Plaintiff's 14 share in the Land.

[16] Section 322 (2) National Land Code 1965 ( NLC ) allows for the lodgement of caveats to bind an undivided share in the land.

Court's Findings

Section 322 NLC

[17] In the present application:

(i) the 2nd Defendant's application for the 2014 caveat referred to the lapsed prohibitory order and asked to lodge a caveat over 1/a share of the Land (Exhibit "YBH-3" Enclosure 2); and

(ii) the First Defendant's application for the 2024 caveat referred to YKS's undivided !4 share in the Land although one of the forms show that the caveat was to be lodged on the whole of the Land (Exhibit "YBH-4" Enclosure 2).

[18] From the land searches exhibi