Edgar Joseph Jr. SCJ:

Broadly stated, the question for decision in this appeal is whether the Judge (V.C. George J) was right in holding that the respondent (which was the plaintiff in the Court below), was entitled as against the appellants, Puspita Corporation Sdn Bhd, the Government of the State of Selangor and the Land Administrator, Kuala Selangor, (who were the first, the second and the third defendants, respectively, in the Court below), to the declarations prayed for in the originating summons and, in consequence, to the injunction prayed for therein, as against Puspita Corporation Sdn. Bhd.

It would be more convenient to refer to the appellants and the respondents as the first, the second, the third defendants, and the the plaintiff, respectively.

More particularly, the plaintiff had by its originating summons prayed for the following reliefs:

(i) a declaration that the mining material in particular the ilmenite (commonly known as "amang") found on the lands held under Mining Lease number 14 Mukim of Batang Berjuntai, Selangor is and continues to be the property of the plaintiff; (ii) a declaration that the permits issued by the second and/or the third defendant for the extraction and removal of rock material from Lots 1578 and 1579 (Mining Lease No: 14) Mukim of Batang Berjuntai, Selangor, under Form 4C of the National Land Code, is null and void; (iii) an injunction against the first defendant to restrain its servants and/or agents from removing, extracting or however otherwise deal ing with the mining materials in particular ilmenite (amang) from land held under Mining Lease number 14 Mukim of Batang Berjuntai, Selangor; (iv) general damages against the first defendant; (v) such further or other relief as is just.

The background facts which led to the dispute the subject matter of the originating summons are set out in the judgment of the Court below which, for convenience, we adopt.

By way of preliminary, the Judge said this:

At all relevant times the plaintiffs were the holders of several mining leases in respect of some 30 lots in the Mukim of Batang Berjuntai, Selangor. One of these mining leases in respect of lots 1578 and 1579 that had been issued in favour of the plaintiffs was mining lease 14 (ML 14) which was due to expire on 25 August 1985. On 23 February 1984 the plaintiff had submitted their application for the renewal of this lease. It is to be noted that as at 25 April 1990 the plaintiffs had not obtained any response to the application.

The Judge then referred to certain events which sparked off the dispute herein in these terms:

On that date, 25 April 1990, the Assistant Land Administrator for Kuala Selangor had issued in favour of the 1st defendant a National Land Code Form 4C permit dated 1 May 1990 to be valid until the 31st May 1990 in respect of lots 1578 and 1579 and another lot numbered 1559 permitting the removal of "Pasir Hitam (Amang)" from those lots. A similar permit was given to the 1st defendant in respect of lots 1578 and 1579 for the further period 1 June 1990 up to 1 October 1990. The 1st defendant was required to deposit RM10,000 with the land office by way of security for the payment of royalty for the material to be removed from the lots. The royalty to be charged was RM2.10 per cubic meter which apparently works out to RM1.05 per ton.

It was on learning of the issue of those Form 4C permits that the plaintiffs caused the instant originating summons to issue seeking inter alia a declaration that the "Amang" on the said lots is the property of the plaintiffs and for an injunction restraining the 1st defendant, its servants and agents from removing the "Amang" from those lots. Damages and further and other relief as is just is sought. Pending the resolution of the proceedings in Court the parties have agreed to have the status quo maintained - neither side would remove the "Pasir Hitam (Amang)" from those two lots.

The Judge then described the layout and location