The court ruled that a private caveat can be maintained if the caveator demonstrates a caveatable interest and serious issues to be tried, balancing the interests of all parties involved.

JUDGMENT

Anand Ponnudurai J:

Introduction

[1] In the Torren System regulating land law in Malaysia, the entry of a caveat on land titles is common place. It is also very common for aggrieved parties to then seek the removal of such caveats. This was one such case.

[2] The Plaintiff in this current proceedings is seeking to remove two private caveats lodged by the 2nd and 3rd Respondents (hereinafter referred to as "R2" and "R3") respectively as well as a Registrar's caveat lodged by the 1st Respondent ((hereinafter referred to as "R1") on the title for a piece of land under Geran No 58491/M1/27/52, Bangunan No M1, Tingkat No 27, Petak No 52 Lot 2627, s 1, Bandar Georgetown, Daerah Timor Laut, Pulau Pinang (hereinafter referred to as "the said land").

[3] Having heard learned Counsel for the parties submit with the aid of their written submissions, I ordered the removal of the private caveat entered by R3 and the Registrar's caveat by R1. I however dismissed the application to remove R2's private caveat.

[4] The Plaintiff has since filed a notice of appeal against my decision of not removing R2's caveat and as such, I will hereinbelow set out the salient background facts, parties' rival contentions and the reasons for my decision.

Background Facts

[5] It is undisputed that one Kalidas a/l Kumarawelo was as at 2009 and still is today the registered owner of the said land. On 4 September 2009, the Plaintiff entered into a sale and purchase agreement with Kalidas to purchase the said land.

[6] The Plaintiff had then paid the purchase price to Kalidas's solicitors, Mr Mahendran Raman who had then released part of the balance purchase price of RM2,285,775.88 to Kalidas. However, the sale did not materialize for some reason.

[7] This then led to the Plaintiff herein commencing a civil suit in December 2018, against Kalidas and his solicitor, Mr Mahendran Raman vide Civil Suit No: KA-22NCVC-130-12/2018 (hereinafter referred to as "Suit 130") in respect of the sale and purchase agreement wherein the Plaintiff sought the return of the monies paid for the said purchase.

[8] As Kalidas did not enter an appearance in Suit 130, a Judgment in Default was entered against him on 4 March 2019 that the sale and purchase agreement was null and void and Kalidas was to return the sum of RM2,850,717.02 to the Plaintiff.

[9] Kalidas then sought to set aside the said judgment in default vide notice of application filed on 5 November 2019 but the same was dismissed by the Court on 21 July 2020.

[10] In the meantime, on 4 December 2019, Kalidas and R2 had entered into a sale and purchase agreement for the said land for the price of RM1.5 million.

[11] It is R2's case/position herein that pursuant to that sale and purchase agreement he had paid Kalidas a sum of RM1,430,000.00 pursuant to which his solicitors Messrs. Toh Them Hock & Co sent the original copy of the grant for the said land to R2's solicitors and it is undisputed that the same is retained by them till to date.

[12] On 5 December 2019, R2 registered a private caveat on the said land based on the sale and purchase agreement with Kalidas.

[13] On 1 July 2020, R2 made the payment for the arrears of the assessment tax and quit rent of the said land.

[14] On 6 July 2020, R2 then paid the balance sum of RM70,000.00 which was within the completion date.

[15] On 14 July 2020, R2's solicitors vide their letter to Kalidas informed him of the remaining RM70,000.00 kept by them as a stakeholder and requested vacant possession and keys from Kalidas in respect of the said land.

[16] In the meantime, surprisingly, on 10 July 2020, R3 also entered a private caveat on the said land premised on yet another sale and purchase agreement entered with Kalidas in respect of the said land.

[17] On 30 July 2020, R2 lodged a police report in respect of the sale and purchase agreement and R3's private caveat.

[18] R2 took swift action and had on 28 August 2020 commenced a writ action against Kalidas and R3 vide PA-22NCVC-152-08/2020 (her