Back
2025 MarsdenLR 1095
HIGH COURT MALAYA SHAH ALAM
PAKIAM KULAN – Appellant
Versus
SARADHA KANNAN – Respondent
[Civil Suit No: BA-22NCVC-441-10/2023]
The court affirmed that ownership must be proven by the claimant, and the burden shifts to the defendant to establish a valid title; failure to do so results in a finding of trespass.
Headnote:(A) Land Law - Trespass - The Plaintiff claims beneficial interest in an undivided sub-lot from an agreement dated 27 April 1984. The Defendant, claiming to be a bona fide purchaser, occupied the land without consent. The court ruled that the Plaintiff proved ownership and the Defendant failed to establish her title. (Paras 1, 2, 46)
(B) Burden of Proof - The Plaintiff must prove ownership, while the Defendant must prove the validity of her title documents. The court found discrepancies in the Defendant's documents and ruled in favor of the Plaintiff. (Paras 25, 34, 46)
Facts of the case:
The Plaintiff discovered trespass in 2017, with the Defendant occupying the land since 2013. The Plaintiff registered a caveat in 2019 and sought damages for trespass. (Paras 2, 13, 14)
Findings of Court:
The Defendant's title documents were found to be fraudulent, and the Plaintiff was deemed the rightful owner of the sub-lot. (Paras 46, 50)
Issues: The main issues were the validity of the Defendant's title documents and the Plaintiff's ownership of the sub-lot. (Paras 20, 21)
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that the Plaintiff's ownership must be established, and the Defendant's failure to prove her title led to the conclusion that she was a trespasser. (Paras 19, 46)
Result: Judgment for the Plaintiff, ordering the Defendant to vacate the land and awarding nominal damages of RM10,000.00.
JUDGMENT
Introduction
[1] The Plaintiff claims to have beneficial interest to an undivided sub¬lot on a piece of land held under master titles Geran No 20043 and 20054 for Lots 10433 and 10444 Mukim Kelang, Selangor Darul Ehsan respectively from a sale and purchase evidenced by an agreement with the vendors dated 27 April 1984.
[2] In 2017, the Plaintiff discovered that the Defendant had fenced up her sub-lot with zinc sheets, built structures on it and was occupying the land with parked trailers without her knowledge or consent. The Defendant claims to be a bona fide purchaser who purchased the said sub-lot from one Krishnan a/l Varathan on 26 June 2012.
[3] In this action, the Plaintiff is suing the Defendant for trespass and seeks orders for vacant possession of said sub-lot, general damages, interest and costs.
Procedural Matters
[4] The action was tried on 7 and 10 October 2024 and the following witnesses gave evidence:
(a) PW-1: Pakiam a/p Kulan, the Plaintiff
(b) PW-2: Velu a/l Ramaiah, the Plaintiff's son
(c) PW-3: Saraswathy a/p Ramaiah, the Plaintiff's daughter
(d) DW-1: Paramasivam a/I Narayanasamy, the Defendant's husband
(e) DW-2: Saradha a/p Kannan, the Defendant
(f) DW-3: Kathiraysen a/l Mapani, owner of another sub-lot
(g) DW-4: Vijayagomaran a/l Mariappan, owner of another sub-lot
[5] In respect of the documentary evidence, there was confusion as to the categorization of the documents. solicitors for the Plaintiff had prepared, filed and served a Common Bundle of Documents in Parts A, B and C, apparently with the agreement of solicitors for the Defendant.
[6] At the trial, either due to oversight or a change of mind, counsel for the Defendant took the position that the Part A documents were not agreed as to content. The Court made a procedural ruling to relegate Part A documents to Part B and that witnesses may be cross examined on the contents of Part A documents.
[7] In respect of documents marked as Part C however, they remained as such and no attempt was made to individually tender them into evidence. Technically, they were not admitted into the body of evidence.
[8] The 3 bundles of documents were marked as follows:
(a) B: Common Bundle of Documents in Parts A, B and C.
(b) B1: Defendant's Additional Bundle of Documents
(c) B2: Defendant's 2nd Additional Bundle of Documents
[9] The Court also had sight of 2 original documents introduced for inspection:
(a) Plaintiff's original Agreement dated 27 April 1984 (the copy of which is at pp 1-15 of Bundle B) ("P's 1984 SPA")
(b) Defendant's original Agreement dated 27 April 1984 (the copy of which is at pp 1-12 of Bundle B2) ("D's 1984 SPA")
[10] D's 1984 SPA was only produced during DW-1's testimony and no copy of that document had been previously tendered in discovery. Bundle B2 was filed following my direction that a copy of D's 1984 SPA be filed so that the evidence is properly before the Court .
The Partie's Contentions
[11] Pursuant to P's 1984 SPA, the Plaintiff purchased what is identified as S. Lot 18-A from the vendors in that sale. According to the recital to P's 1984 SPA, the vendors had purchased a 1312/157480 share of the master titles from Tew Siew Choo and obtained a Power of Attorney from said Tew Siew Choo to deal with the rest of the land.
[12] From the face of P's 1984 SPA, the Plaintiff was one of numerous purchasers of 81 undivided sub-lots on Geran 20043 for Lot 10433 (1-Ato 1-21A) and Geran 20054 for Lot 10444 (1-B to 22-B; 1-C to 22-C; and 1-D to 16-D). According to the Plaintiff's case, P's 1984 SPA was retained as proof of the Plaintiffs purchase and beneficial ownership of S. Lot 18-A and she never parted with possession of it.
[13] PW-1 and PW-3 testified that they discovered the alleged trespass in 2017. There is no documented evidence of this visit to S. Lot 18-A on the discovery of the alleged trespass. However, the Plaintiff registered a private caveat on Geran 20054 for Lot 10444 on 27 September 2019 (which I will say more abo
