The court established that the existence of a Registrar's caveat is justified where there are grounds for potential fraud, necessitating thorough investigations before determining the validity of ownership.

[1]This is an appeal to remove the Registrar's caveat under s 418 of the National Land Code .

[2]The plaintiffs are individuals and the registered co-proprietors of the land described as GM 3820 at Lot 4100 Mukim 03 Daerah Seberang Perai Utara Pulau Pinang ("Land").

[3]The defendant is the District Land Administrator appointed pursuant to s 12(1) of the National Land Code (" NLC ").

Brief Facts

[4]The original proprietor of the Land is Mariam Yahaya who died on 17 January 2014.

[5]The 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 6th and 9th plaintiffs are the registered co-proprietors as the result of the presentations of transfer of ownership of parts of the Land from Mariam Yahaya on 15 April 2014. There were also three other presentations of transfer of parts of the Land by Mariam Yahaya to Hartini Abdul Rahim, Mohd Subuki Fadzil and Ahmad Rasfan Hj A Rahman on the same day.

[6] The District Land Administrator on 2 October 2014 vide presentation No.0702B2014001300 entered the Registrar's caveat on the Land.

[7]One Marlia Mohd Belia who claimed to be the beneficiary of the estate of Mariam Yahaya filed Penang High Court Originating Summons Nos: 24NCVC-167-02-2015 and PA-24NCVC-953-10-2016 on 27 February 2015 and 19 October 2016 against the plaintiffs respectively. However both the aforesaid Originating Summons were struck off.

[8]The plaintiffs then on 7 February 2017 filed Penang High Court Originating Summons No: PA-24NCVC-119-02-2017 against the defendant and the State Director of Land and Mines appealing against the rejection of the plaintiffs' application for subdivision of the Land.

[9]The plaintiffs then by a letter dated 3 August 2017 wrote to the defendant to remove the Registrar's caveat on the Land. The defendant by a letter dated 28 August 2017 replied declining to do so.

[10]As the result, the plaintiffs filed this Originating Summons ("OS") on 27 October 2017. The affidavits filed for the purposes of this OS are as follows:

(i)Plaintiffs' affidavit in support affirmed by Mohd Azhar Bakar dated 6 November 2017; and

(ii) Defendant's affidavit in reply affirmed by Rozila Zulkifly dated 15 December 2017.

[11]After having read the written submission filed by the parties, I heard counsel on 26 January 2018. I thereafter dismissed the OS with costs of RM1,000.00.

[12]The plaintiffs are dissatisfied with my decision and have on 22 February 2018 filed their appeal to the Court of Appeal.

[13]Consequently, I hereby furnish below the grounds of my decision.

Preliminary Objection

[14]The plaintiffs raised a preliminary objection that the defendant's affidavit in reply was filed late beyond 1 December 2017 as directed by the court pursuant to O 28 r 4 of the Rules of Court 2012. The defendant's affidavit in reply was only sent to the plaintiffs' solicitor by post and facsimile on 18 December 2017.

[15]According to the defendant, the plaintiffs did not object to the allegedly late filing of the defendant's affidavit during the final case management session before the Deputy Registrar on 19 December 2017. The purpose of that case management was to ensure that all cause papers are filed and in order. The plaintiffs merely stated that they did not wish to file a further affidavit in reply on that day.

[16]I have reviewed the court file but did not see any minutes recording that the defendant had been directed to file the defendant's affidavit in reply by 1 December 2018. Moreover as argued by the defendant, the plaintiffs did not raise their objection on the alleged irregularity in the filing service and service of the defendant's affidavit in reply during the final case management session on 19 December 2017.

[17]In the circumstances, I am of the view