Back
2025 MarsdenLR 3105
MAHKAMAH TINGGI MALAYA KOTA BHARU
SEAN-LEE (M) SDN BHD LWN. MUHAMMAD NUR HISYAM CHE MAHMOOD
[Saman Pemula No: DA-24NCVC-266-08/2023]
The court affirmed the validity of the Sale and Purchase Agreement despite claims of invalidity, emphasizing that both parties breached their contractual obligations.
Headnote:(A) Specific Relief Act 1950 - Section 41 - Contracts Act 1950 - Sections 75 and 76 - Declaration sought by Plaintiff regarding the validity of a Sale and Purchase Agreement - Court found that the Agreement was valid and enforceable despite the Plaintiff's claims - Plaintiff failed to prove the merits of the claims for relief - Court ruled that both parties had breached their contractual obligations. (Paras 11, 12, 14, 41, 43)
(B) Conditions Precedent - The court clarified that the requirement for obtaining State Authority's consent does not constitute a condition precedent for the Agreement to be valid - The Agreement was deemed a conditional agreement, and failure to meet conditions would result in the lapse of the Agreement. (Paras 20, 25, 41)
Facts of the case:
The Plaintiff, the registered owner of a property, entered into a Sale and Purchase Agreement with the Defendant for RM6,500,000.00, with a deposit of RM1,000,000.00. The Plaintiff sought a declaration that the Agreement was void and to recover the deposit after the Defendant failed to make further payments. (Paras 1-10)
Findings of Court:
The court found that the Sale and Purchase Agreement was valid and enforceable, and the Plaintiff's claims for relief were not substantiated. The court also noted that both parties had breached their contractual obligations. (Paras 41-43)
Issues: The main issues included whether the Sale and Purchase Agreement was valid and whether the Plaintiff was entitled to the relief sought. (Paras 14, 41)
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the Sale and Purchase Agreement was valid despite the Plaintiff's claims, and the requirement for State Authority's consent did not invalidate the Agreement. The court emphasized that both parties had obligations under the Agreement that were not fulfilled. (Paras 20, 41)
Result: Plaintiff's application dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. plaintiff seeks declaration (Para 1 , 3) |
| 2. court's decision on claims (Para 2) |
| 3. details of the property (Para 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 4. payments made by defendant (Para 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 41) |
| 5. plaintiff's legal basis (Para 11) |
| 6. court's final decision (Para 42 , 43 , 44) |
PENGHAKIMAN
Pendahuluan
[1] Plaintif dalam Saman Pemula Terpinda (kandungan 15) memohon suatu perintah deklarasi bahawa Perjanjian Jual Beli bertarikh 18 Mei 2022 yang dimasuki antara Plaintif selaku Penjual dengan Defendan selaku Pembeli ("Perjanjian Jual Beli tersebut") berkenaan hartanah PN 3249, Lot 5188, Mukim Panchor, Jajahan Kota Bharu, Kelantan ("Hartanah tersebut") adalah terbatal dan tidak sah, perintah untuk melucutkan wang sejumlah RM2,450,000.00 yang telah diterima daripada Defendan dan perintah kebenaran untuk menjual Hartanah tersebut kepada pihak lain yang berminat.
[2] Setelah membaca dan meneliti kesemua afidavit yang telah difailkan serta mengambil kira penghujahan oleh kedua-dua pihak, maka pada 28 April 2024, Mahkamah ini telah memutuskan bahawa permohonan Plaintif tersebut adalah ditolak.
[3] Terkilan dengan keputusan tersebut, Plaintif memfailkan Notis Rayuan ke Mahkamah Rayuan bertarikh 14 Mei 2024.
Latar Belakang Kes
[4] Plaintif adalah pemilik berdaftar dan benefisial Hartanah tersebut yang berukuran 11,333 meter persegi dengan bangunan didirikan atasnya.
[5] Plaintif selaku penjual dan Defendan selaku pembeli telah memasuki Perjanjian Jual Beli tersebut dengan harga dipersetujui sebanyak RM6,500,000.00, bayaran deposit sebanyak RM1,000,000.00 serta bayaran baki RM5,500,000.00 secara ansuran bulanan yang perlu dibayar oleh Defendan pada setiap 1 haribulan mulai Jun 2022 sehingga selesai.
[6] Pada masa Perjanjian Jual Beli tersebut ditandatangani, terdapat kaveat persendirian didaftarkan atas Hartanah tersebut melalui No Perserahan 982/2021 dan gadaian Hartanah tersebut kepada Maybank Islamic Berhad melalui No Perserahan 3946/2017.
[7] Defendan telah beberapa kali membuat bayaran dengan jumlah keseluruhan RM2,450,000.00 seperti berikut:
[8] Berdasarkan setakat beberapa bayaran tersebut, Plaintif melalui peguamnya telah mengeluarkan notis bertarikh 19 Jun 2023 (ekshibit Y-4 dalam afidavit sokongan) mengingatkan Defendan supaya membayar baki ansuran dan peringatan kegagalan mematuhi notis tersebut akan menyebabkan Perjanjian Jual Beli tersebut ditamatkan.
[9] Seterusnya, setelah tiada lagi bayaran ansuran dijelaskan, maka Plaintif melalui surat bertarikh 17 Julai 2023 (ekshibit Y-5 dalam afidavit sokongan) mengeluarkan notis menamatkan Perjanjian Jual Beli tersebut dan antara lain juga melucutkan semua bayaran yang telah dibuat iaitu sebanyak RM2,450,000.00.
[10] Oleh yang demikian, Plaintif telah memfailkan Saman Pemula Terpinda (kandungan 15) memohon suatu perintah deklarasi bahawa Perjanjian Jual Beli tersebut adalah terbatal dan tidak sah, perintah untuk melucutkan jumlah pembayaran yang telah dibayar setakat hanya RM2,450,000.00 dan perintah kebenaran untuk menjual Hartanah tersebut kepada pihak lain.
Prinsip Undang-Undang
[11] Plaintif membuat permohonan ini berlandaskan kepada Aturan 7, Aturan 28 dan Aturan 92 kaedah 4, Kaedah-Kaedah Mahkamah 2012.
[12] Plaintif juga membuat tuntutan ini berdasarkan s 41 Akta Relief Spesifik 1950 yang memperuntukkan seperti berikut:
"Any person entitled to any legal character, or to any right as to any property, may institute a suit against any person denying, or interested to deny, his title to the character or right, and the court may in its discretion make therein a declaration that he is so entitled, and the plaintiff need not in that suit ask for any further relief:
Provided that no court shall make any such declaration where the plaintiff, being able to seek further relief than a mere declaration or title, omits to do so."
[13] Selain itu, Plain
