A beneficiary does not acquire a registrable interest in estate property until the estate is fully administered, and unsubstantiated allegations do not justify retaining a caveat.

JUDGMENT

Moses Susayan JC:

Introduction

[1] This judgment pertains to the plaintiff's application for the removal of a private caveat lodged by the defendant, the plaintiff's mother, over land registered under Pajakan Hakmilik Sementara Daerah No 2766, PT 367 in Mukim Tanah Rata, Cameron Highlands, Negeri Pahang. The application is made pursuant to s 327 of the National Land Code (" NLC "). It is also noteworthy that the Plaintiff filed a similar application to remove another private caveat lodged by the Plaintiff's brother, over the same property. That application was also heard together with this application and it is registered under Originating Summons No: AA-24NCvC-286-06/2024 [Teong Peek Meng v. Teong Peck Joo].

Background Facts

[2] The deceased, Teong Boon Gee, passed away on 6 July 2002, leaving behind his wife, the defendant, and seven children, including the plaintiff. Following his death, a distribution order was issued on 3 June 2003, confirming the transfer of ownership of a piece of land to the plaintiff, who subsequently became the registered owner on 2 April 2004. However, nearly two decades later, on 26 October 2022, the defendant lodged a private caveat against the said property, asserting a beneficial interest as a legal heir of the deceased. In response, the plaintiff has challenged the caveat, arguing that the defendant has no valid caveatable interest and seeking its removal on the basis of insufficient legal or equitable justification.

Issues To Determine

[3] Does the plaintiff satisfy the three-pronged approach for the removal ofthe caveat as established in Luggage Distributors (M) Sdn Bhd v. Tan Hor Teng &Anor; 1995 MarsdenLR 539 ; [1995] 3 CLJ 520; [1995] 2 AMR 969?

a) Whether the defendant has a valid caveatable interest under s 323(1) of the NLC .

b) Whether the caveator can demonstrate, through affidavits and evidence, a serious issue warranting a trial.

c) Where does the balance of convenience lie in the matter?

Issue 1: Caveatable Interest

[4] The landmark case of Luggage Distributors (M) Sdn Bhd v. Tan Hor Teng &Anor (supra) sets out the test to determine caveatable interest. The Court of Appeal held the following:

"In my judgment, there are three stages through which an inquiry of this nature must go. The first stage is the examination of the grounds expressed in the application for the caveat. If it appears that the grounds stated therein are insufficient in law to support a caveat, then cadit quaestio, and the caveat must be removed without the necessity of going any further.

.....

The matter does not come to an end once the caveator satisfies the Court that his claim as expressed in the application in Form 19B amounts in law to a caveatable interest. He must go on to show, in appropriate cases, that, based on the affidavits filed, his claim discloses a serious question meriting a trial. This then is the second stage. The degree of proof that has to be offered will, of course, vary from case to case.

At this the second stage the Court is more concerned with matters of evidence and proof offered to support the caveator's claim....

The third stage is arrived at only after the first two hurdles have been crossed by the caveator. Here the question to be asked relates to the balance of justice, or what Lord Diplock termed in Eng Mee Yong as 'the balance of convenience'. As to the matters that go to determine in which direction the balance should tilt, these have already been set out in such clear terms by Lord Diplock in Eng Mee Yong that mere repetition becomes unnecessary.

It is only upon satisfying these three stages of curial scrutiny that a caveat may be permitted to remain. That this should be so is only logical; for it is a serious matter to caveat a person's property, and unless a case is properly made out, a caveat ought not to be permitted to remain on the register a moment longer than is absolutely necessary."

[Emphasis Added]

[5] The three-prong test of Luggage Distributors (M) Sdn Bhd's case