A party can claim to be aggrieved even without being a registered owner, provided they demonstrate adverse effects from the existence of a caveat, and must prove valid caveatable interest.

[1] The plaintiff by this originating summons primarily applies for the removal of a private caveat (No. 450/2010) lodged by the defendant against the land held under GRN 52770, Lot 4896, Mukim Selandar, in the District of Jasin, Melaka (Formerly known as GRN 4438, Lot 406, Mukim of Selandar, in the District of Jasin, Melaka), (the subject land).

[2] At the outset, there are two applications before this court for determination in connection with the same subject land. In addition to the present application to remove the defendant's private caveat, the plaintiff has also assailed the registered owner's, Aikpoint Development Sdn Bhd (Aikpoint), application in the originating summons No. 24 NCvC-209-12/ 2011 (first application) for the release of a sum amounting to RM340,000.00 which the government had paid as compensation sums for the compulsory acquisition of a certain part of the subject land. At the start of this proceeding, both parties had agreed that both applications could be heard together. After hearing both parties, this court has on 28 November 2012 allowed the registered owner Aikpoint's application to have the compensation money released to them. As for this application, this court, has also allowed the plaintiff's application to remove the defendant's private caveat. Both Aikpoint, in the first application, and the defendant, in the present application, now appeal against the said decisions.

Salient Background Facts

[3] The salient facts leading to the above applications are as follows:

(a) Aikpoint is the registered owners of Lot 406, Geran No. 4438, Mukim Selandar, in the district of Jasin, Melaka (now known as Lot 4896, Geran No. 52770, Mukim Selandar, in the District of Jasin, Melaka).

(b) On 20 April 1999 and 21 April 1999, Aikpoint and the plaintiff had agreed on the sale and purchase of the subject land at the purchase price of RM906,750.00. The Plaintiff had paid a 10% deposit for the purchase of the subject land amounting to RM90,675.00.

(c) On 8 May 1999, Aikpoint through their solicitors had requested for fair copies of the sale and purchase agreement for execution. The plaintiff's solicitors, on 11 May 1999, thereafter submitted four (4) fair copies of the sale and purchase agreement duly signed by the plaintiff to Aikpoint's solicitors for their execution.

(d) On 3 July 1999, Aikpoint, however, through their solicitors had informed the plaintiff's solicitors that they no longer wished to execute the fair copies of the sale and purchase agreement and returned the 10% deposit of the purchase price to the plaintiff's solicitors. This was not accepted by the plaintiff and the deposit payment was returned to Aikpoint's solicitors.

(e) On 22 February 2000, the plaintiff filed civil suit No 22-21-2000 against Aikpoint applying for specific performance of the sale and purchase agreement of the said land.

(f) On 20 October 2005 and upon completion of the full trial, the Melaka High court (Y.A Low Hop Bing J, as he then was) held inter alia granting the plaintiff an order for specific performance of the fair copy of the sale and purchase agreement entered into between Aikpoint and the plaintiff; that the plaintiff was the beneficial owners of the land, and Aikpoint as a trustee for the plaintiff with regard to the said land.

(g) On 4 February 2010, the court of Appeal dismissed Aikpoint's appeal and affirmed the High court Order dated 20 October 2005.

(h) On 28 June 2010, the Federal court dismissed Aikpoint's application for leave to appeal to th