Suffian LP:

The question for our determination in this appeal is whether the respondent has a caveatable interest in two pieces of land in Kedah. The expression "caveatable interest" though in frequent use is not defined, and s. 323 of the National Land Code merely states

(1) The persons and bodies at whose instance a private caveat may be entered are -

(a) Any person or body claiming title to, or any registrable interest in, any alienated land or any right to such title or interest ...

The learned Judge held that the respondent had and has caveatable interest and refused to remove the two caveats entered against the lands.

The appellants contend that if any one has a caveatable interest it is Messrs. Manilal & Sons (M) Sdn. Bhd. (hereinafter referred to as the company), not the respondent.

To understand the argument, it is necessary to set out some of the facts.

One Ratnavale had some business dealings with the respondent, who is the managing director of the company.

On 21 March 1967, the company paid Ratnavale through his solicitors Messrs. Ong Huck Lim & Co. $250,000. This is evidenced by the receipt at p. 56 of the appeal record which reads:

ONG HUCK LIM & CO,