Back
2023 MarsdenLR 1059
HIGH COURT MALAYA TAIPING
PREMALATHA RAMA GOVINDA – Appellant
Versus
PREMAVATHY BALAKRISHNAN (ENCLS 1 2 12 13 & 14) – Respondent
[Originating Summons No: AB-24NCVC-21-02/2023]
Court emphasized the necessity of enforcing judgments and the inherent powers to prevent injustice, particularly in trust law regarding property ownership.
Headnote:(A) Civil Procedure - Originating Summons - Inherent powers of the Court under Order 92 r 4 of the Rules of Court 2012 - Plaintiff sought enforcement of judgment regarding matrimonial property and costs owed by Defendant - Court found Defendant in contempt for failing to comply with previous court orders - Court allowed Plaintiff's application with amendments and costs. (Paras 1, 25, 32)
(B) Trust Law - Beneficial interest in property - Court determined Plaintiff held half ownership of matrimonial property as a trust for her benefit - Defendant's failure to transfer ownership constituted a serious breach of trust. (Paras 8, 24)
(C) Injunction - Mandatory injunction - Court emphasized the necessity of granting mandatory injunction to prevent ongoing injustice due to Defendant's non-compliance. (Paras 15, 21)
Facts of the case:
The Plaintiff, as the lawful wife of the deceased, sought enforcement of a judgment granting her half ownership of a matrimonial property and costs owed by the Defendant, who was the deceased's sister and executor of the estate. The Defendant failed to comply with the court's orders, leading to the Plaintiff filing the Originating Summons.
Findings of Court:
The Court found the Defendant had not complied with the terms of the judgment, causing delays and depriving the Plaintiff of her rightful ownership. The Court allowed the Plaintiff’s application for enforcement of the judgment with necessary amendments.
Issues: The primary issues involved the enforcement of the judgment regarding property ownership and costs owed, as well as the Defendant's compliance with court orders.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court held that the Defendant's actions amounted to a blatant disregard of the court's orders, justifying the invocation of inherent powers to enforce compliance and prevent injustice.
Result: Application in the Originating Summons allowed with costs.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. court allowed originating summons with costs. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. plaintiff's rights established through prior judgments. (Para 6 , 7 , 8) |
| 3. arguments presented by parties regarding compliance and ownership. (Para 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13) |
| 4. mandatory injunctions must prevent injustice. (Para 15 , 16 , 17) |
| 5. court's authority to enforce compliance with judgments. (Para 18 , 19 , 20) |
| 6. defendant's delay and disregard for court orders noted. (Para 21 , 22 , 23) |
| 7. court's inherent powers invoked to ensure justice. (Para 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31) |
| 8. final ruling in favor of plaintiff. (Para 32) |
Introduction
[1] This Court decided on 22 August 2023 to allow the Originating Summons ("the OS") in this case filed by the Plaintiff with costs. The Defendant filed a Notice of Appeal against the Court's decision on 19 September 2023. This Grounds of Judgment contains the reasons for allowing the OS.
[2] The prayers in the OS sought for the following orders from the Court:
"1. Bahawa Defendan dikehendaki untuk mengambil tindakan dan/atau melaksanakan yang berikut, dalam tempoh empat belas (14) hari dari tarikh Perintah ini, bagi tujuan melaksanakan dan/atau mematuhi Penghakiman Mahkamah Tinggi Taiping bertarikh 9 August 2018 bagi Guaman Sivil No: AB-22NCVC-14-06/2017:
(a) Memfailkan suatu permohonan untuk meminda Senarai Aset- Aset Harta Pusaka Dr Ganeshwaran a/l K.T. Balakrishnan (No. Kad Pengenalan: 640223-07-5399), Si Mati di bawah Geran Probet bertarikh 12 October 2016 seperti yang dicadangkan di Lampiran A yang dilampirkan bersama dengan Saman Pemula ini;
(c) Melaksanakan turunmilik dan mendaftarkan Defendan sebagai wakil/wasi kepada Harta Pusaka Dr Ganeshwaran a/l K.T. Balakrishnan (No. Kad Pengenalan: 640223-07-5399), Si Mati atas Hartanah sebuah rumah yang dipegang di bawah hakmilik individu GM 10265, Lot No 81958, s 30, Tempat Telok Gadong Besar di Bandar Klang, Daerah Klang, Negeri Selangor Darul Eshan yang mempunyai alamat di No 62, Lebuh Peria, Taman Radzi, 41200 Klang, Selangor Darul Ehsan (selepas ini dirujuk sebagai "Aset Perkahwinan tersebut"), dan seterusnya, melaksanakan pindahmilik setengah (1/2) bahagian Aset Perkahwinan tersebut daripada Defendan selaku Wasi ke atas nama Plaintif selaku Benefisiari kepada setengah (1/2) bahagian Aset Perkahwinan tersebut di bawah suatu amanah; dan
(c) Memberikan satu set kunci yang lengkap bagi Aset Perkahwinan tersebut kepada Plaintif supaya Plaintif dapat mengakses Aset Perkahwinan tersebut.
2. Bahawa sekiranya Defendan gagal untuk melaksanakan perkara 1 (a) di atas dalam masa yang ditetapkan, Plaintif mempunyai hak untuk memfailkan suatu permohonan bagi meminda Senarai Aset-Aset Harta Pusaka Si Mati di bawah Geran Probet bertarikh 12 October 2016 seperti yang dicadangkan di Lampiran A,
3. Bahawa Defendan dikehendaki membekalkan salinan Suratan Hakmilik ("Title Deed") bagi Aset Perkahwinan tersebut kepada Plaintif, dalam tempoh empat belas (14) setelah Suratan Hakmilik yang mencerminkan pemindahan setengah (1/2) bahagian Aset Perkahwinan tersebut ke atas nama Plaintif dikeluarkan, bagi tujuan rekod dan simpanan Plaintif;
4. Bahawa Defendan dikehendaki untuk membayar jumlah sebanyak RM31,200.00 kepada Plaintif daripada Estet Si Mati, yang merupakan jumlah kos dan fi alokatur yang telah diperintahkan oleh Mahkamah Tinggi Taiping (melalui Penghakiman bertarikh 9 August 2018 di Guaman Sivil No: AB-22NCVC-14-06/2017) dan Mahkamah Persekutuan Malaysia (melalui Perintah bertarikh 11 February 2020 di Permohonan Sivil No: 08(f)-339- 08/2019(A));
5. Bahawa Notis Pengendorsan sebagaimana dalam Borang 83 Kaedah- Kaedah Mahkamah 2012 dimasukkan ke dalam perintah ini;
6. Bahawa segala kos yang terlibat bagi melaksanakan perintah ini dan kos permohonan ini ditanggung oleh Defendan;
7. Lain-lain relif yang dianggap patut dan sesuai oleh Mahkamah Yang Mulia ini.".
[3] The brief reasons listed by the Plaintiff in the OS were:
"1. Seperti yang dihakimi di bawah Peng
