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, ADVOCATES & SOLICITORS, 16A, Beach Street, Penang

CLIENTS No. 10816

Penang, 21 March 1967.

Re: Charge of Grant No. 715 for Lot No. 461 and

Grant No. 1171 for Lot 290, Mukim of Kulim.

Received from M/s Manilal & Sons (M) Ltd, the sum of Dollars Two Hundred and fifty thousand only for above $250,000 Cashier

Six-cent stamp.

It is to be noted that receipt clearly states that the money was received from the company rather than from the respondent personally, and secondly it referred to a charge of the two lands.

Somehow or other the lands were never charged to the company or the respondent.

On 10 October 1972, the company's solicitor wrote the letter at p. 37 of the appeal record to Ratnavale's solicitor pointing out that the latter had received on the company's behalf $250,000 "for effecting a certain transaction with Mr. M Ratnavale" and asking for the return of that money within a week as the transaction had not come through.

But on 2 November 1972, the respondent's solicitor wrote a letter to Ratnavale and his wife referring to a meeting at which both of them admitted having taken the $250,000 from the respondent rather than from the company. This letter (at p. 34) also referred to an arrangement between the Ratnavales and the respondent whereby the Ratnavales were to buy Bukit Merah Estate which consisted of five separate pieces of land, the respondent was to have $250,000 worth of shares in the venture (hence presumably the payment of the $250,000) and this share was to be secured by a charge over the five lots constituting the Estate. The letter also referred to an agreement by the Ratnavales that they would transfer to the respondent some portions of the Estate to the value of $250,000 less whatever had been repaid. Finally the letter gave warning that the respondent's solicitors might enter a caveat against the lands.

On 6 November 1972 the respondent applied to caveat the land. In his application (p. 20 of appeal record) he did not mention the company. He said that he was the beneficial owner of four pieces of lands, including the two in question, as their registered proprietor Ratnavale had agreed to transfer them to him as repayment of $250,000 lent by him to Ratnavale.

Eventually the respondent withdrew the caveat against two pieces, leaving in being the caveat against the two pieces in question only, and it is with this caveat alone that we are concerned.

It will be noted that there is no reference in this application to the fact if true that the $250,000 had been paid to Ratnavale by the company.

Ratnavale died on 9 April 1973, and his two brothers are now executors and trustees of his estate, applicants in the Court below and appellants before us.

On 18 July 1974, the appellants applied to the Court for an order that the cav