Applications under the National Land Code to extend caveats must be made inter partes unless exceptional circumstances justify an ex parte application.

[1] This is an appeal against the decision of the High Court of Kuala Lumpur given on 8 November 2012.

[2] On 8 November 2012, the High Court of Kuala Lumpur had dismissed the appellants' application to set aside an ex parte order granted by the High Court to the respondent on 18 July 2012.

[3] The High Court ex parte order of 18 July 2012 was made pursuant to an ex parte originating summons (OS No: 24(NCVC)-1740-07-2012) application to the High Court by the respondent seeking an extension of his private caveat that was due to expire on 28 August 2012 (in his supporting affidavit the respondent erroneously states the date of expiry of the private caveat to be '1 August 2012' - but this is a matter that will be discussed later in this judgment).

Decision Of This Court

[4] We, unanimously, have allowed this appeal with costs.

[5] We now give our grounds.

Facts Of The Case

[6] On 23 February 2012, the respondent lodged a private caveat in respect of a piece of land, namely, a land held under title GRN 266860, Lot 803, Mukim of Rawang, District of Gombak, Selangor ('the disputed property'); thereby restraining any dealing in respect of the disputed property.

[7] This land is registered in the names of two co-owners, namely:

(1) Ong Ku @ Hong Poe (1/2 share); and

(2) Onn Kah Tiam (1/2 share)

[8] Both these registered co-owners have died. They were husband and wife. Ong Ku @ Hong Poe (the wife) died on 22 June 2009; whilst Onn Kah Tiam (the husband) died earlier on 14 September 2008.

[9] The respondent gives the following reasons for lodging the caveat. He claims to be a beneficiary of the estate of Onn Kah Tiam. He states that the late Onn Kah Tiam died leaving a will and naming the respondent as one of the beneficiaries under the will; that under the will his share in respect of the disputed property is '1/6'; that there is a dispute between the children of the deceased couple: those claiming to be the beneficiaries of the estate of Ong Ku @ Hong Poe on the one hand, and those claiming to be the beneficiaries of the estate of Onn Kah Tiam, on the other; culminating in a civil suit at the Kuala Lumpur High Court (High Court Kuala Lumpur Civil Suit No: S-22-422-2010).

[10] The respondent, however, is not a party to this civil suit (S-22-422-2010); but the personal representatives of the estate of Onn Kah Tiam are cited as the defendants in the civil suit.

[11] It is not disputed that after the lodging of the private caveat, the respondent did not commence any Court action against the estate of Ong Ku @ Hong Poe to enforce any of the proprietary claims (if he has any) as enumerated in s 323(1) of the National Land Code ('the NLC ') in respect of the disputed property. And neither does he state anywhere in his supporting affidavit (in applying to extend the life of his private caveat) that he intends to commence any such action in the near future.

[12] The appellants are the personal representatives (also the executors and trustees under the will of Ong Ku @ Hong Poe) of the estate of Ong Ku @ Hong Poe pursuant to a grant of probate. They are aggrieved by the presence of the respondent's private caveat in the title of the disputed property. They, accordingly, made an application pursuant to s 326(1) of the NLC to the Registrar of Title for the removal of the private caveat.

[13] On 28 June 2012 the Registrar of Title, pursuant to s 326(1A) of the NLC , served on the respondent (the caveator) with a Form 19C Notice for the removal of the caveat.

[14] Section 326 (1A) of the NLC provides:

(1A) On receiving any application for removal under this section, the registrar shall:

(a) serve upon the person or body at whose instance the caveat was e