Mohd Azmi SCJ:

[1] This was an appeal against the order of the High Court made in Kuala Lumpur on 15 May 1991, allowing the respondent's application to set aside a private caveat entered by the appellant on 26 October 1989 and extended by order of Court dated 21 June 1990. It was common ground that the entry of the caveat was made under s 323(1)(b) of the National Land Code because the caveator was claiming to be beneficially entitled under a trust created by a testator affecting certain alienated lands in Kuala Lumpur.

[2] The case involved a dispute between six members of the Tan family over properties left by their late father, Mr Tan Kee who died on 23 January 1969. By his last will the deceased left all his properties to his six sons in equal shares and appointed the third son, Tan Boon Thong (the 1st respondent before us) to be the sole executor and trustee of his estate. By Petition No 395 of 1969, Tan Boon Thong applied to Kuala Lumpur High Court and duly obtained a grant of probate on 14 April 1971. The appellant (herein referred to as "the caveator") was one of the brothers and was beneficially entitled to 1/6 interest in the following properties:

(a) EMR 6651 Lot 1576, Mukim of Batu.

(now held under GM 284)

(b) EMR 6652 Lot 1578, Mukim of Batu.

(now held under GM 285)

(c) EMR 5275 Lot 1842, Mukim of Batu.

(now held under GM 1508)

(d) EMR 511 Lot 1878, Mukim of Batu.

(now held under GM 917)

(e) EMR 2630 Lot 1217, Mukim of Batu:

½ undivided share.

(now held under GM 1639)

(f) EMR 498 Lot 2523, Mukim of Batu:

½ undivided share.

(now held under GM 1735)

(g) EMR 521 Lot 2524, Mukim of Batu:

½ undivided share

(now held under GM 1803)

(h) EMR 3763 Lot 2529, Mukim of Batu:

½ undivided share

(now held under GM 1515)

[3] On 21 July 1989, the appellant and another brother, Tan Chai Chof @ Tan Bu Jee commenced proceedings against the other beneficiaries one of whom was the personal representative of the estate of Tan Tong @ Tan Boon Thong (now deceased). The other defendants were two companies allegedly having close connection with the executor. The cause of action in the Kuala Lumpur High Court Civil Suit No: S6-22-595 of 1989 was for breach of a "family arrangement" entered by all the six beneficiaries on or about 1974. Under the "family arrangement", the caveator and Tan Chai Chof @ Tan Bu Jee agreed to make a gift of their beneficial interests in the estate in favour of the other four brothers (1st, 2nd, 3rd and 4th caveatees) in consideration of two portions of the testator's property, viz half an acre respectively in the land held under GM 1639 for Lot 1217 and GM 917 for Lot 1878 (that is, property marked (d) & (e) above) being transferred to the caveator.

[4] In the said civil suit, the caveator and the other brother Tan Chai Chof @ Tan Bu Jee, claimed for the removal of Tan Boon Thong (the 1st respondent/caveatee) as executor and trustee of the will, and for the Official Administrator to be appointed trustee of the estate. They also prayed for all dealings in the testator's property purportedly carried out under the "family arrangement" be set aside and vested in the Official Administrator, and also for accounts and damages for breach of trust and other ancillary reliefs. Pending the outcome of the civil suit on the "family arrangement" dispute, the caveator entered a caveat under s 323 National Land Code on all the 8 parcels of land on the basis that he was beneficially entitled to the properties under the deceased's estate. A lengthy statutory declaration verifying the caveator's claim was attached to the Form l9B in which the will of the deceased, grant of probate, and a copy of the civil suit were exhibited. It could not be disputed that if the civil suit were eventually decided in the caveator's favour, the main results would be to relieve all concerned from liability under the "family arrangement" and to restore the respective 1/6 shares of the caveator and the other beneficiaries as originally bequeathed under the will of t