Back
2024 MarsdenLR 3347
HIGH COURT MALAYA KUALA LUMPUR
AHMAD SHAHRIR MOHD SALLEH, J
SEMANTAN ESTATE (1952) SDN BHD – Appellant
Versus
THE REGISTRAR OF TITLES (FEDERAL TERRITORY) – Respondent
[Originating Summons No: WA-24NCVC-301-02/2017]
The court affirmed its broad powers under Section 417 of the National Land Code to enforce judgments regarding land ownership, emphasizing that explicit title declarations are not necessary for compliance.
Headnote:(A) National Land Code - Section 417 - Plaintiff sought an order to enforce a judgment from December 2009 regarding land ownership - Court affirmed that the plaintiff retained beneficial interest and directed necessary actions for compliance with the judgment. (Paras 1, 5, 31)
(B) Powers of the Court - The court emphasized its authority under s 417 to direct actions necessary to enforce judgments in land matters, irrespective of the specificity of prior judgments. (Paras 9, 20, 26)
Facts of the case:
The plaintiff sought enforcement of a prior judgment confirming their beneficial interest in land unlawfully possessed by the defendant, with the court having previously dismissed the defendant's appeals. (Paras 6, 21)
Findings of Court:
The court recognized the unlawful occupation of the land by the Government and the necessity to revert ownership to the plaintiff. (Paras 8, 22)
Issues: The main issue was whether the court could direct actions under s 417 without explicit ownership declaration in the prior judgment. (Paras 18, 20)
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the expansive powers under s 417 allowed for orders to be made to give effect to judgments, regardless of the exact wording of prior rulings. (Paras 9, 26)
Result: The plaintiff's application was allowed, with the defendant given three months to comply with the order. (Paras 31)
Introduction
[1] In this originating summons, the plaintiff applied for an order to direct the defendant to give effect to the judgment in favour of the plaintiff handed down by the High Court in December 2009. In essence, the plaintiff sought for an order pursuant to s 417 of the National Land Code for its name to be reinstated in the register of titles as the rightful proprietor of the lands in question.
[2] At the onset, the learned Senior Federal Counsel requested for a further three months' grace to enable the parties to reach settlement. Despite no objections from the learned counsel for the plaintiff, I was not persuaded with the reasons advanced and proceeded to hear the aged originating summons.
[3] After perusing the application and the affidavits filed for and against the application and considering the position of the respective parties as deliberated in the submissions of the learned counsel for the plaintiff and the learned Senior Federal Counsel appearing for the defendant, this Court allowed the plaintiff's application with RM50,000.00 cost. The defendant was not satisfied with the decision and appealed.
Brief Background Facts
[4] A number of reported judgments for various suits have dealt with the facts and history of the case. I find no further need to repeat the same. Suffice for me to confine matters to the judgment of Her Ladyship the Honourable Judicial Commissioner Puan Zura binti Yahya dated 29 December 2009 in High Court Suit No S7-21-213-2003 ("2009 Judgment").
[5] The operative parts of the 2009 Judgment read as follows:
"(a) The plaintiff retained its beneficial interest in the 263.272 acres of the land held under CT 17038 Mukim of Batu (formerly part of the land known as Lot 4647 comprised in CT 12530) of which the defendant has through its servants and/or agents taken unlawful possession of and that the plaintiff is entitled as against the defendant to possession thereof;
(b) That the defendant do pay the plaintiff mesne profits as damages for trespass, the said damages to be assessed by the Senior Assistant Registrar;
(c) That the defendant do pay the plaintiff costs in respect of liability forthwith.".
[6] The defendant appealed against the 2009 Judgment but in May 2012 the Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal and affirmed the decision of the High Court . The defendant's leave to appeal to the Federal Court was dismissed in November 2012. Six years later the defendant's application for a review was also dismissed by the Federal Court . In short, the 2009 Judgment stood as good judgment.
[7] In the present application, the plaintiff sought for the following reliefs:
(a) that an order be granted to direct the defendant to do all such things as may be necessary to give effect to that part of the 2009 Judgment that orders as follows:
"The plaintiff retained its beneficial interest in the 263.272 acres of land held under CT 17038 Mukim of Batu (formerly part of the land known as Lot 4647 comprised in CT 12530) of which the defendant has through its servants and/or agents taken unlawful possession of and that the plaintiff is entitled as against the defendant to possession thereof;"
(b) that an order(s) be granted to direct the defendant to:
(i) transfer and cause to be transferred the 263.272 acres of land which was held under CT 17038 Mukim of Batu and the subject of the Judgment to the plaintiff, free of encumbrances and liabilities, including but not limited to registering the plaintiff as the proprietor of the Land,
(ii) take and cause all necessary steps to be taken to register the plaintiff as the proprietor of the Land, free of encumbrances and liabilities,
(iii) execute and cause to be executed all instruments of transfer necessary to effect a transfer of the Land free of encumbrances and liabilities to the plaintiff,
(iv) issue and cause to be issued the issue document of title to the Land free of encumbrances and liabilities in the name of the plaintiff,
(v) pre
