Back
2023 MarsdenLR 108
HIGH COURT MALAYA SUNGAI PETANI
VINTAGE DEVELOPERS SDN BHD – Appellant
Versus
THARUMALINGAM SUBRAMANIAM & ORS – Respondent
[Originating Summons No: KB-24NCVC-92-04/2023]
The court emphasized that summary eviction procedures are inappropriate when there are triable issues regarding the occupants' rights based on historical agreements and litigation outcomes.
Headnote:(A) Order 89 Rules of Court 2012 - The Plaintiff's application for possession of lands was dismissed as the Defendants were not mere squatters but had legitimate claims based on prior agreements and litigation outcomes - The Plaintiff failed to disclose relevant facts regarding the Defendants' occupation and legal rights, rendering the summary procedure inappropriate. (Paras 17, 21, 28, 34)
(B) Res Judicata - The Defendants' claim of res judicata was unsupported as they could not demonstrate that the same issue was previously determined in a way that barred further litigation. (Paras 24, 27)
(C) Triable Issues - The Court found serious triable issues regarding the Defendants' rights to occupy the lands based on the history of employment and settlement agreements. (Paras 30, 32)
Facts of the case:
The Plaintiff sought possession of lands previously occupied by workers of an estate, asserting ownership while Defendants claimed rights based on prior settlements and ongoing compensation disputes.
Findings of Court:
The Court found that the Plaintiff's failure to disclose material facts and the existence of triable issues warranted dismissal of the application for possession.
Issues: The main issues included the legitimacy of the Defendants' occupation, the applicability of res judicata, and whether there were triable issues regarding the right to occupy the lands.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court ruled that the summary process under Order 89 ROC was not applicable due to the presence of triable issues and the Plaintiff's lack of full disclosure.
Result: Application dismissed with costs.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. plaintiff's application for possession. (Para 1 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7) |
| 2. court's final decision on application. (Para 2) |
| 3. defendants' account of land occupation history. (Para 8 , 9) |
| 4. defendants claim triable issues. (Para 10 , 11) |
| 5. plaintiff's and defendants' arguments. (Para 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16) |
| 6. principles governing o 89 roc proceedings. (Para 17 , 18 , 19) |
| 7. duty to disclose relevant facts. (Para 21 , 22 , 23) |
| 8. assessment of res judicata claim. (Para 24 , 25 , 26) |
| 9. existence of triable issues. (Para 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32) |
Introduction
[1] Enclosure 1 is the Plaintiff's application for possession of lands held under the description of Hakmilik Sementara Geran 89027 Lot 50, Mukim Padang Meha; Geran 5552 Lot 1015, Mukim Padang Meha; HS(D) 55794 Lot 4180, Mukim Padang Meha; HS(D) 1874/97 Lot 4181, Mukim Padang Meha; HS(D) 1884/97 PT4191, Mukim Padang Meha; HS(D) 1879/97 PT 4186, Pekan Padang Meha; HS(D) 16340 PT4187, Pekan Padang Meha; HS(D) 16347 PT4188, Pekan Padang Meha; HS(D) 55795 Lot 4190, Pekan Padang Meha; HS(D) 16355 PT4189, Pekan Sungai Karangan; HS(D) 16377 PT4192, Pekan Sungai Karangan; HS(D) 16379 PT4193, Pekan Sungai Karangan; dan HS(D) 16381 PT4194, Pekan Sungai Karangan, semua dalam Daerah Kulim, Negeri Kedah Darul Aman (Lands). The application is premised on O 89 Rules of Court 2012 (ROC).
[2] After considering the cause papers and the oral submissions by the parties, this Court decided to dismiss the Plaintiff's application in encl 1. The following are the reasons for the decision.
Housekeeping
[3] The Plaintiff instituted this application against 50 named Defendants and other unknown occupants of the Lands. Defendants 1, 2, 3, 9, 19, 47, 49 and 50 entered appearance vide encl 4 dated 3 May 2023 and encl 14 dated 20 June 2023.
[4] Defendant 15 entered into a consent order with the Plaintiff on 21 June 2023.
[5] The Plaintiff was unable to serve the cause papers on the other defendants and on 23 May 2023, the Plaintiff withdrew the suit against all of them.
[6] Therefore encl 1 will only be in respect of Defendants 1, 2, 3, 9, 19, 47, 49 and 50 (Defendants).
[7] On 6 August 2023, this Court set a schedule for the filing of affidavits. The Defendants filed 2 affidavits in compliance (Enclosure 9 and 18) and the Plaintiff responded with encls 17 and 21. The Defendants filed another affidavit (encl 20) outside the said the time frame and therefore that affidavit will not be considered for the hearing of encl 1.
Enclosure 1
[8] In their affidavit in support (Enclosure 2), the Plaintiff averred that they are the registered owners of the Lands [Exhibit CTY-1] and that the Defendants were occupying the Lands without their consent.
[9] In their affidavits in reply (Enclosures 9 & 18), the Defendants narrated the following chronology:
(i) the Lands were formerly part of Padang Meiha Estate (Estate) owned by East Asiatic Company (M) Bhd (EACM);
(ii) EACM sold the Lands to MBf Holdings (MBfH) in 1995 and terminated all the Estate workers;
(iii) as a result of litigation, MBfH and EACM entered into a settlement agreement dated 8 November 1995 (1995 Settlement Agreement) [Exhibit TS-9 Enclosure 9] whereby EACM paid MBfH monies to be utilised to settle compensation to the former workers of the Estate as identified in Schedule 1 of the agreement;
(iv) the names of the Defendants are set out in the Schedule 1;
(v) the Lands were registered in the name of MBf Country Homes and Resort (MBf CHR) and they commenced an application under O 89 ROC vide OS No: 24-1254-1995 in the High Court at Alor Setar to evict the Defendants and other occupants but that application was dismissed on 14 April 1996;
(vi) MBf CHR filed an appeal against that decision but withdrew the appeal upon negotiating settlement with the Defendants and other occupants of the Lands;
(vii) a sample of the settlement agreement between MBf CHR and one the occupants of the Lands in 1997 is as evidenced by the settlement agree
