A Proposed Intervener must demonstrate a direct legal interest in the subject matter of the proceedings; mere financial interest is insufficient for intervention.

Jamhirah Ali J:

Introduction

[1] Enclosure 6 is the application filed by the Proposed Intervener, one Kavitah a/p Vathumalai, seeking leave to intervene in the Plaintiff's application under encl 1.

[2] In encl 1, the Plaintiff seeks to remove the private caveat lodged by the Defendant, one Paul Monash a/l Narayanasamy, over the property held under Geran 339999, Lot 126483, Mukim Dengkil, Daerah Sepang, Negeri Selangor, bearing the address No 2, Jalan Kananga 1/10, Taman Kenanga, 43900 Sepang, Selangor Darul Ehsan (the Property).

Background Facts

[3] On 11 April 2023, the Plaintiff entered into a Sale and Purchase Agreement (the Agreement) with the registered proprietors of the Property for a total consideration of RM550,000.00 (the Purchase Price).

[4] At the material time, the Property was jointly owned in three equal shares by the following individuals:

a. Kejendran a/l Nadarajan (Kejendran),

b. Mardai @ Ratha a/p Ponusamy (P Mardai), and

c. The Estate of the late Sargunan a/l Nadarajan (Sargunan), represented by Kejendran as administrator of the deceased's estate.

These individuals shall hereinafter be collectively referred to as "the Vendors".

[5] The Plaintiff was represented in the transaction by Messrs Thana Krishnen & Co (the Purchaser's Solicitors), who prepared the Agreement. Before executing the Agreement, the Plaintiff conducted a land search on 28 March 2023, which confirmed that there were no caveats registered on the Property. Based on this confirmation, the Plaintiff proceeded to execute the Agreement.

[6] Following execution, the Plaintiff paid a deposit of RM55,000.00 to the Vendors. On 1 June 2023, the Plaintiff lodged a private caveat over the Property to safeguard her interest as purchaser.

[7] On 4 November 2023, the Plaintiff's financier, CIMB Islamic Bank Berhad (the Financier), paid the redemption sum of RM123,707.49.

[8] On 21 December 2023, the Financier released the balance purchase price of RM371,292.51 to the Purchaser's Solicitors.

[9] The Plaintiff contended that throughout the transaction, she was unaware of any dispute between the Proposed Intervener, the Defendant, and Kejendran, and had no knowledge of any prior caveats on the Property. She maintained that she was a bona fide purchaser without notice and acted in good faith.

[10] It was only upon the rejection of the transfer of ownership by the Land Office that the Plaintiff discovered a caveat previously lodged by the Proposed Intervener on 10 July 2023 (the First Caveat), which had prevented registration of the Property in her name.

[11] Arising from this, Kejendran filed Originating Summons No BA- 24NCvC-735-04/2024 (Suit 735) on 15 April 2024 at the Shah Alam High Court, seeking to remove the First Caveat.

[12] Meanwhile, on 3 April 2024, the Defendant lodged a second private caveat over the Property (the Second Caveat), prompting the Plaintiff to file encl 1 to remove this Second Caveat.

The Law

[13] Order 15 r 6(2)(b) of the Rules of Court 2012 empowers the Court, at any stage of proceedings, to add a person as a party if their presence is necessary to fully and effectively determine the issues in dispute or if there exists a question between that person and any existing party that is connected to the relief sought in the action and ought to be resolved together.

[14] The guiding principle in determining whether leave to intervene ought to be granted is well established. In Pegang Mining Co Ltd v. Choong Sam & Ors 1973 MarsdenLR 23 ; 1973 MarsdenLR 245 , the Privy Council observed:

"It has been sometimes said as in Moser v. Marsden [1892] 1 Ch 487 and in In re IG Farbenindustrie AG [1944] Ch 41 that a party may be added if his legal interests will be affected by the judgment in the action but not if his commercial interests only would be affected. While their Lordships agree that the mere fact that a person is likely to be better off financially if a case is decided one way rather than another is not a sufficient ground to entitle him to be added a