A registered proprietor's right to possession can be challenged based on allegations of illegality, requiring the proprietor to prove lawful ownership.

[1] The plaintiff applied, by Originating Summons for an order of possession of land under O 89 of the Rules of 2012 (). The land that the plaintiff sought to recover was held under title No 66178, Lot 43180, Mukim Belanja, Daerah Kinta, Negeri Perak ("the property").

[2] The plaintiff 's claim for possession was on the ground that it was the registered proprietor of the property and the defendants were squatters who did not have any right in law or equity to remain there. The defendants denied that they were squatters and alleged that they had a licence to occupy the property.

[3] By an application dated 5 August 2015, the first defendant sought an order under O 18 r 19(1) of the Rules of 2012 () to strike out the plaintiff's application for possession of the property. The striking out application was premised on these grounds:

a. The originating summons was not in Form 8A.

b. The prayers sought in the originating summons were outside the scope of O 89

c. The plaintiff had failed to show that it was entitled to possession.

[4] In resisting the striking out application, the plaintiff contended that it was misconceived in light of the judgment of the Federal Court in Sidek bin Haji Muhamad & 461 others v. The Government of the State of Perak and others, ; . It was contended that the Federal Court case prevented the first defendant from challenging its right to possession as the registered owner of the property. I shall refer to this case later in the judgment.

[5] I turn now to deal with the arguments of the parties in relation to the three grounds on which the striking out order was sought.

Issue 1: Whether Non Compliance With Form 8A Is Fatal

[6] The first point pertains to Form 8A. O 89 expressly provides that Form 8A must be used to seek summary possession of land. This, the defendant argued, indicated that must be strict compliance and any deviation from the statutory form, however minor, was fatal. The following passage in the case of In re 9, Orpen Road, Stoke Newington [1971] WLR 166 was relied upon to bolster this argument:

In those circumstances the conclusion is, I am afraid, inevitably that the summons was issued in form 11A without fulfilling the condition in RSC O 113, r 2(2), that the applicant should have taken reasonable steps to identify the person occupying the land. It is nihil ad rem that he has subsequently identified the occupants who are, I understand, a Mr and Mrs Taylor. I am sorry to dismiss this summons on what may be thought to be a somewhat formal procedural point, but it seems to me that this very special procedure enabling a person claiming possession to proceed on a summons not naming the alleged occupant must be strictly complied with and that it would not be right to waive a defect of this kind even if I had jurisdiction to do so. It seems to me that once one finds as a fact, as I do, that this applicant did not take reasonable steps to identify every person occupying the land, then the consequence necessarily follows that the proceedings are defective from the start and the summons must be dismissed. I am, of course, not expressing any view at all on the substance of the matter.

[7] The plaintiff conceded that the originating summons in the instant case did not follow Form 8A as the words "To (Defendant and) every (other) person in occupation of..." were not inserted in the originating summons in accordance with the statutory form. The plaintiff disputed that this was a defect or was fatal and contended that it was only a minor irregularity that was curable under the ROC as the defendants were not prejudiced or misled by this