Co-proprietorship can be terminated and land sold even without majority consent if justified by lack of cooperation among co-owners.

JUDGMENT

Choong Yeow Choy JC:

Introduction

[1] The distinctiveness of this case stems from the fact that the six siblings concerned are not fighting over their shares in their late parents' estate. Their shares and entitlement are not in dispute. The overriding disagreement relates to the question of whether the estate in the form of a piece land jointly owned by the six siblings ought to be disposed of or that they should continue to hold the said land as co-proprietors.

[2] The Plaintiff has commenced this Originating Summons application seeking an order for the said land to be sold pursuant to s 145(2)(c) of the National Land Code and O 31 of the Rules of 2012. Of the five Defendants, only three of the five Defendants are fervently contesting the application

The Prevailing Issue

[3] The central issue in this Originating Summons is whether this is a proper case for this Court to exercise its discretion to terminate the co-proprietorship pursuant to s 145(2)(c) of the National Land Code and direct that the said land be sold pursuant to O 31 of the Rules of 2012.

The Parties

[4] The Plaintiff and the Defendants are siblings.

[5] The Plaintiff and the First, Second and Third Defendants are brothers while the Fourth and Fifth Defendants are their sisters.

[6] The ownership of the said land is as follows:

Low Peck Lim (Plaintiff) - 19.44%

Low Peck Sang (D1) - 19.44%

Low Peck Chuan (D2) - 19.44%

Low Peck Guan (D3) - 19.44%

Low Say Wah (D4) - 11.11%

Low Soh Beng (D5) - 11.11%

[7] The six siblings are aged between 63 and 73 years old.

The Claims Before This Court

[8] The reliefs sought by the Plaintiff in his Originating Summons in encl 1 are as follows:

a. Keseluruhan hartanah yang dipegang dibawah GRN 123148, Lot 57902, Mukim dan Daerah Klang (tanah tersebut) dan dimiliki oleh Plaintif dan D1 hingga D5 selaku pemilik bersama atau "co-proprietors" ditamatkan milikan bersama tanah tersebut (termination of co-proprietorship) dibawah s 145 Kanun Tanah Negara (KTN) dan juga tanah tersebut dijual dibawah O 31 Kaedah-Kaedah Mahkamah dan juga s 145(2)(c) KTN;

b. Tanah tersebut setelah dijual dan hasil jualan setelah ditolak perbelanjaan yang sah termasuk komisyen jualan sebanyak 2% dibahagikan kepada kesemua pemilik bersama iaitu Plaintif dan Defendan Pertama hingga Defendan Kelima mengikut bahagian mereka masing-masing seperti ternyata dalam geran tanah tersebut;

c. Tanah tersebut dijual melalui jualan swasta dengan harga RM27.00 juta atau harga jualan melebihi RM27 juta oleh Plaintif dan/atau mana-mana D1 hingga D5 dalam tempoh 60 hari daripada tarikh perintah disini diberikan, dan tempoh tersebut boleh dipanjangkan jika perlu, dengan persetujuan semua pihak dan Plaintif serta D1 hingga D5 berhak melantik ejen hartanah untuk membanitu jualan swasta tersebut;

d. D1 atau D2 dan/atau Pentadbir harta pusaka Ng Kwee Wah, Low Shirly atau sesiapa yang memegang geran asal hartanah tersebut dikehendaki menyerah hak milik asal geran tersebut kepada peguam Plaintif dalam tempoh 7 hari daripada perintah disini diberikan untuk tujuan menyediakan perjanjian jual beli tanah tersebut;

e. Jika mana-mana pemilik bersama (D1 hingga D5) enggan menandatangani perjanjian jualan setelah tawaran RM27 juta atau lebih tinggi dan bayaran 10% deposit diterima, dan setelah diberi tempoh 7 hari, maka PKP dibenarkan menandatangani perjanjian jualan tersebut dan lain-lain semua dokumen bagi pihak pemilik bersama yang enggan menandatangani surat perjanjian dan dokumen berkenaan tersebut.

f. Plaintif bebas membuat permohonan (kepada PKP atau Hakim) termasuk lanjutan tempoh jualan tanah dan menetap harga jualan yang baru jika perlu.

g. Kos tindakan disini termasuk perbelanjaan menyediakan laporan penilai tanah ditanggung oleh D1 hingga D5, dan;

h. Apa-apa perintah dan relif yang lain yang dianggap sesuai dan patut oleh Mahkamah yang mulia ini.

[9] The First, Second and Third Defendant have also filed encl 30, seeking to strike out the Plaintiff's Originating Summons.

[10] This Court shall fi