VIMALA MARUTHAMUTHOO vs PAUL MONASH NARAYANASAMY

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

HIGH COURT MALAYA SHAH ALAM
VIMALA MARUTHAMUTHOO – Appellant
Versus
PAUL MONASH NARAYANASAMY – Respondent

Petitioner Advocates:Etrus Tan ,Respondent Advocate: J J Naidu

Table of Content
1. overview of the caveat application and parties. (Para 1 , 2 , 3)
2. factual details surrounding the property and the caveat. (Para 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11)
3. legal provisions and tests for caveat removal. (Para 12 , 13 , 14)
4. court's findings on the defendant's claims and plaintiff's position. (Para 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21)
5. conclusion on the validity of the caveat. (Para 22 , 23)

Jamhirah Ali J:

Introduction

[1] Enclosure 1 is the Plaintiff's application made pursuant to ss National Land Code, ss 327, 329, 417 of the National Land Code 1965 (NLC 1965) seeking an order to remove the private caveat lodged by the Defendant, Paul Monash a/l Narayanasamy, on 3 April 2024 over the property held under Geran 339999, Lot 126483, Mukim Dengkil, Daerah Sepang, Negeri Selangor (the Property).

[2] The Plaintiff's application was premised on the assertion that the Defendant has no caveatable interest in the Property, and that the continued presence of the caveat causes serious prejudice to the Plaintiff, who has fully performed her obligations under a valid sale and purchase transaction.

[3] Prior to the decision of this application, the Court had, via encl 6,

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

HIGH COURT MALAYA SHAH ALAMVIMALA MARUTHAMUTHOO – AppellantVersusPAUL MONASH NARAYANASAMY – Respondent

Cases Referred (4)

HIGH COURT MALAYA SHAH ALAM
VIMALA MARUTHAMUTHOO – Appellant
Versus
PAUL MONASH NARAYANASAMY – Respondent