Back
2011 MarsdenLR 4581
HIGH COURT MALAYA, KUALA LUMPUR
RICHARD LAU GUAN LONG V KALAIVENI A/P ALAGESU & ORS
[Civil Suit No. S-24-171-2010]
The principle 'first in time, first in law' establishes priority of claims for bona fide purchasers, while unregistered charges lack enforceable rights under property law.
Headnote:(A) National Land Code - Section 327 - Caveat applications - Plaintiff seeking removal of caveats over property purchased from registered owner. Both the defendants lodged caveats but the 1st and 2nd defendants withdrew objections. The 3rd defendant claimed to purchase same property later but lacked a registered interest. Unregistered charge by 4th defendant not prioritized. (Paras 1, 3, 7, 8)
(B) Bona Fide Purchasers - Both plaintiff and 3rd defendant claim status as bona fide purchasers for value. Established principle ‘first in time, first in law’ determined the priority of claims. (Paras 7, 8)
Facts of the case:
Plaintiff purchased the property from Kalai Selvan on 28.11.2005, with objections raised by family members and another claimant. Plaintiff’s transaction predates the others, and caveats lodged were contested.
Findings of Court:
The plaintiff is deemed the beneficial owner and was thus granted relief. Costs were awarded against the 3rd and 4th defendants.
Issues: Determination of caveat withdrawal impacts; prioritization of claims among multiple purported purchasers of property.
Ratio Decidendi: First transaction in time holds priority as per the established legal principle; unregistered charges do not convey enforceable rights under the National Land Code.
Result: Enclosure 22 allowed with costs against 3rd and 4th defendants.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. claims of caveat and purchase rights. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 2. analysis of competing claims and priorities. (Para 6 , 7) |
1. By Enclosure 22, the plaintiff is seeking the removal of the caveats lodged over a piece of land ("the property") that he claims to have purchased from the registered proprieter, one Kalai Selvan Alagesu.
2. The plaintiffs claim is premised on a Sale and Purchase agreement entered into between the plaintiff and Kalai Selvan on 28.11.2005. The full purchase price was paid and consent to transfer the property was obtained from the State Authority on 18.2.2006.
3. The 1st and 2nd defendants are the sister and mother of Kalai Selvan. They had lodged a caveat over the property on 24.1.2006. They have since withdrawn their objection to the application.
4. The 3rd defendant also claimed to be a purchaser of the property by virtue of a Sale and Purchase agreement dated 15.2.2006 entered into between him and Kalai Selvan. The 3rd defendant lodged his caveat in 2006.
5. The 4th defendant claimed to be a bona fide charges for value as the said land was charged to the 4rd defendant by Kalai Selvan to secure a loan to pay the premium for the property. This charge was not registered as the issue document of title was not given to the bank but was sent by the Land Office to Kalai Selvan.
6. As the 1st and 2nd defendants have withdrawn their objection to the application, I will only address the issues raised by the 3rd and 4th defendants herein.
7. In respect of the 3rd defendant I find that both the plaintiff and the 3rd defendant claim to be bona fide purchasers for value. However the maxim "first in time, first in law" applies here, as the transaction between the plaintiff and Kalai Selvan took place in 2005 while, the transaction was entered into between the 3rd defendant and Kalai Selvan in 2006. A search at the land office should have been conducted by the 3rd defendant's lawyer as it would have revealed that the plaintiff had lodged a caveat over the property in September 2005.
