Qualified land titles are provisional until final surveys are completed under NLC, and claims cannot proceed against indefeasible titles under specified conditions.

Gunalan Muniandy JCA:

Introduction

[1] This appeal is by the appellants, who were defendants in the Court below ("D1-D3") against the decision of the Learned Judicial Commissioner ("LJC") at the Shah Alam High Court ("HC") wherein the LJC allowed the plaintiff/respondent's claim against D1-D3 for declaratory orders and several consequential/ancillary orders. The decision followed a full trial involving the plaintiff and D1-D3 only. As for the 4th defendant ("D4"), it successfully obtained an order to be struck out from the suit, which order remains valid and has not been set aside. D4's inclusion in this appeal is pursuant to an order of the Federal Court allowing D4 to intervene at the Court of Appeal as the 4th appellant.

Factual Background

[2] The respondent was at all material times the proprietor of all that Land held under Individual Title Deed HSD 110086, Lot No 4, Bandar Sunway, District of Petaling, State of Selangor Darul Ehsan ("PT 1") and acquired a registered interest therein on 26 April 1997 after alienation by the 2nd appellant.

[3] By letter dated 27 April 1994, the 1st appellant informed the respondent that the Majlis Mesyuarat Kerajaan Negeri Selangor had approved the respondent's application dated 1 November 1991 for alienation of a Government Land with a measurement of 1.67 acres in area at Kampung Lindungan, Kilometer 16, Lebuhraya Kuala Lumpur/Kelang for purpose of commercial building.

[4] On 15 March 1995, the respondent was issued with Form 5A requiring the respondent to pay RM18,984.00 in tax for the 1st Year, RM4,274,857.00 for Premium, RM60.00 for Penyediaan dan Pendaftaran Suratan Hakmilk dan Suratan Hakmilik Tetap, RM10.00 for Plan Preparation and RM10.00 for Notice.

[5] On 12 April 1997, the respondent rendered a payment of RM715.00 only being the charge for Upah Sukat Batu Sempadan for the final survey to be carried out by the 3rd appellant upon issuance of a request for survey by the Petaling Land Administrator.

[6] The respondent rendered payment and on 26 April 1997, the respondent was issued with Form 11A in accordance with s 177 of the National Land Code ("NLC"), a Qualified Title held under Individual Title Deed Hakmilik Sementara HSD 110086, Lot No 1, Bandar Sunway, District of Petaling, of all that referred to as PT 1, measuring 0.6758 hectares equivalent to 1.67 acres.

[7] The 4th appellant was the proprietor of the neighboring Land on the northern side of PT 1, held under Individual Tile Deed HS (D) 223743, Lot No 853, Bandar Sunway, District of Petaling ("PT 853") and had acquired its registered interest in PT 853 on 29 August 2013.

[8] The respondent averred that at all relevant times prior to the issuance of Individual Title for the neighbouring Land, PT 853 had a land measurement of 1.58 acres only.

[9] On 25 June 2004, the Petaling Land Administrator approved a plan delineating Lot PT 853 with a land measurement of 1.58 acres in area.

[10] On 30 October 2004, a letter was copied to the respondent where the Majlis Perbandaran Petaling Jaya attached a "Pelan Cadangan Rizab Jalan selebar 50 Kaki di Tanah 1.58 Ekar yang diluluskan kepada PKNS".

[11] The respondent averred that PT 853 was alienated later and therefore can only comprise of the remaining land area after taking into account the land area for PT 1.

[12] However, on and/or about 30 August 2005, Qualified Title for PT 853 was issued under Individual Title Deed HS (D) 223743, Lot No 853, Bandar Sunway, District of Petaling, State of Selangor Darul Ehsan with a land measurement of 6961 square meters equivalent to 1.72 acres in area.

[13] The respondent submitted that land area shown in the Qualified Title Deed for PT 853 was mistakenly stated as such or otherwise in error. Such mistake and/or error would have been caused or otherwise attributed to the acts and/ or neglect of the 1st, 2nd and 3rd appellants or each of them, in particular in the survey and determination of the boundaries of PT 853 and PT 1.

[14] The 3rd appellant had on