Back
2024 MarsdenLR 1107
HIGH COURT MALAYA SHAH ALAM
SITI MARYAM BUSRI – Appellant
Versus
SITI ASIAH LANI – Respondent
[Writ Summon No: BA-22NCVC-457-11/2020]
Equitable ownership established through continuous possession and payment of dues; agreements not void for illegality if no assignment of rights is proven.
Headnote:(A) National Land Code - Sections 65 and 68 - Evidence Act 1950 - Section 58 - Claim for beneficial ownership of alienated land - Plaintiff declared beneficial owner of land after proving payments for premium and quit rent, and continuous occupation since 1995 - Defendant's counterclaim dismissed. (Paras 54, 56, 59)
(B) Limitation of Actions - Not time-barred - Continued possession of land by plaintiff since 1995 establishes equitable ownership, preventing statute limitation from applying. (Paras 32, 41)
(C) Illegality of Contract - Agreement not void - No assignment of Temporary Occupation Licence established; agreement for gantiusaha does not violate NLC. (Paras 46, 53)
Facts of the case:
Plaintiff and defendant are related, with the plaintiff having lived on and maintained a house on the Temporary Occupation Licence land since 1995, paying the necessary fees. (Paras 6, 9, 11)
Findings of Court:
Plaintiff has proven her beneficial ownership of the Alienated Land through payments and continuous occupation, with no valid counterclaims from the defendant. (Paras 54, 56)
Issues: The main issues included the nature of payments made by the plaintiff, the time-bar for the claim, the legality of the agreement, and the determination of beneficial ownership. (Paras 19, 32, 42)
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that equitable ownership is established through continuous possession and payment of dues, and the agreement for gantiusaha does not contravene the law. (Paras 41, 53)
Result: Judgment for the plaintiff; defendant's counterclaim dismissed.
JUDGMENT
Introduction
[1] This is an action by the plaintiff against the defendant in respect of a piece of alienated land held under title H.S.(M) 12944 PT 44569, Kampung Sungai Plong, Mukim Sungai Buloh, Daerah Petaling, Negeri Selangor ("the Alienated Land"). The Alienated Land was previously State Land located at Batu 16, Sungai Plong, Sungai Buloh, Selangor (the "TOL Land"). The TOL Land was alienated by the State Authority in 2002.
[2] The plaintiff seeks a declaratory order from this Court that she is the beneficial owner of the Alienated Land. She also seeks consequential orders for the Deputy Registrar of this Court to execute the memorandum of transfer of the Alienated Land from the defendant to the plaintiff and for the Pendaftar Hakmilik Daerah Petaling, Selangor to register the transfer of the Alienated Land after payment of the requisite stamp duty and registration of transfer fees.
[3] The defendant was the holder of a licence to temporarily occupy the TOL Land and is the registered owner of the Alienated Land. She, in turn, counterclaims against the plaintiff for orders that the plaintiff demolish the house that the plaintiff had built on the land in 1995 within 30 days from the date of judgment; that the plaintiff return the issue document of title for the Alienated Land, and that the private caveat lodged by the plaintiff on the Alienated Land be removed. The defendant counterclaims, in the alternative, for damages to be assessed by this Court for the rental payable by the plaintiff for her occupation of the TOL Land, and later the Alienated Land, to be calculated from 1995 to the date of judgment.
[4] After full trial, I gave judgment for the plaintiff and made the orders sought for by the plaintiff. I dismissed the defendant's counterclaim.
[5] The full reasons for my decision are set out in this judgment.
Key Background Facts
[6] The plaintiff is the defendant's sister-in-law: the defendant is married to the plaintiff's brother.
[7] In 1987, the State Authority permitted the defendant temporary occupation of the TOL Land from April 1987 to 31 December 1987 through a Temporary Occupation Licence (Lesen Menduduki Sementara) No A 906038 dated 8 April 1987 (the "TOL Licence"). The defendant had renewed the TOL Licence annually until its alienation in 2002.
[8] In 1995, at the plaintiff's request, the defendant allowed the plaintiff and her family to occupy and build a house on the TOL Land for payment of the sum of RM12,000.00 from the plaintiff to the defendant. In 2002, the State Authority alienated the TOL Land. Upon issuance of a Form 5F (Notice to take out issue document of title) dated 22 July 2003 by the State Authority, the plaintiff gave the defendant the sum of RM14,490.00 for payment of the premium due to the State Authority for the issuance of the issue document of title of the land.
[9] The plaintiff and her family have lived in the house that they built on the TOL Land, which was later alienated to the Alienated Land, from 1995 until 2019. In 2019, the plaintiff and her husband moved to live with their daughter in Bangi after the plaintiff's husband was diagnosed with cancer. He succumbed to the disease in 2020. Now that her husband has passed away, the plaintiff wants to sell the house that she had built on the Alienated Land together with the land but is unable to do so because the land has not been transferred to her.
[10] The defendant had allowed the plaintiff and her family to live in the home that the plaintiff built on the land without hindrance since 1995. She had not asked the plaintiff for the payment of any rental. It was only after the plaintiff filed this instant suit, did the defendant counterclaim against the plaintiff for, among others, the demolition of the plaintiff's house on the land or in the alternative, the payment of rental from 1995 to the date of judgment.
[11] It is an agreed fact that the plaintiff had paid the quit rent for the Alienated Land since its al
