JUDGMENT

KN Segara J:

[1] The plaintiff (formerly known as Kaohyee Timber Company Sdn. Bhd.) is the legal owner of land held under title Q.T.(M) 28 Lot 586 Mukim of Sungai Buloh, State of Selangor since 15 February 1984 (see exh. D18) [formerly known as Roll of Approved Applications No. 403/59 (380/59) dated 21 June 1966 (see exh. D6)]. It states very clearly at the bottom of exh. D6:

Surveyed area 2 acres (blank) roods (blank) poles.

Exchanged for Qualified Title No. (M) 28 Lot No. 586 Mukim of Sungei Buloh.

This 21st June, 1966

Sd. & Sealed

Collector of Land Revenue

[2] The titles in continuation for Q.T.(M) 28 Lot 586 (exh. D18) are H.S.(M) 4848, No. P.T. 586, Mukim of Sungai Buloh, State of Selangor (exh. D17) and final title No P.M. 97, No. Lot 19578 Mukim of Sungai Buloh, State of Selangor (exh. P11). The said final title was issued by the Land Office on 29 August 1988 after a survey was conducted and approved on 20 August 1988. On 30 March 1994 title P.M. 97 was sub-divided into:

1) H.S.(M) 9022, No. PT 27048, Mukim of Sungai Buloh, State of Selangor (exh. D4).

2) H.S.(M) 9023, No. PT 27049, Mukim of Sungai Buloh, State of Selangor (exh. D5).

3) Simpanan Jalan.

4) Kawasan Kubor.

[3] The defendant is the legal owner of land held under Q.T.(M) 30 Lot 587, Mukim of Sungai Buloh, State of Selangor since 18 August 1984 (see exh. Dl) [formerly known as Roll of Approved Applications No 374/59 (376/59) dated 21 June 1966 (see exh. D26)]. It clearly states at the bottom of exh. D26:

Survevyed area 1 acres 2 roods 00 poles.

Exchanged for Qualified Title No. (M) 30 Lot 587 Mukim of Sungei Buloh.

This 21st day of June, 1966.

Sd. & Sealed

Collector of Land Revenue

[4] The titles in continuation for Q.T.(M) 30 Lot 587 are H.S.(M) 4489, No. PT 587, Mukim of Sungai Buloh State Of Selangor (exh. D2) and H.S.(M) 9403, No. PT 587, Mukim of Sungai Buloh, State of Selangor (exh. D3).

[5] In October 1988 the plaintiff filed a civil suit against the defendant at the Sessions Court Klang (62-777-88) alleging that the defendant had trespassed onto the plaintiff's land. The plaintiff claimed for possession of the land, demolition of building structures erected thereon, damages, interest and costs (see p. 3, Bundle A). The defendant's defence (as amended) claimed various declaratory reliefs (see pp. 7-13 Bundle A). The civil suit was eventually transferred from the Sessions Court and registered in the High Court, Shah Alam (22-160-93). The plaintiff did not file any defence to the defendant's counterclaim.

[6] The plaintiff's land and the defendant's land are neighbouring lots adjoining each other. The plaintiff had at no time demarcated its land with any perimeter fence to assert its possessory right to a clearly identifiable area and thus prevent encroachment by any owners of any adjoining lots or trespass by anyone. The plaintiff had at no time visibly defined the boundaries of its land at any time prior to the defendant going into possession and occupation of the defendant's land. The plaintiff had at no time surveyed its land, prior to the defendant going into possession and occupation of the defendant's land, and asserted its rights to such surveyed land and its boundaries. The defendant, too, had not surveyed her land and determined the legal boundaries of the defendant's land before going into occupation and possession, upon her purchase of same.

[7] Upon a consideration of all the evidence by the plaintiff and the defendant, it is manifestly clear that the plaintiff is barking up the wrong tree in filing a suit against the defendant for trespass and damages. This case is nothing more than a case of boundary dispute between 2 adjoining land owners, upon lands that had not been surveyed and boundaries not determined, in accordance to the area of land alienated vis a vis the original titles relating to the said lands. The plaintiff is attempting to steal a march to a substantial increase in area in land from that originally allotted. Upon issue of a title in con