A few days later the proposed transferors obtained an order nisi for a mandamus to the Registrar of Titles directing him to register the transfer and memoranda of mortgage. The order nisi was subsequently made absolute by the judge. From this order the Registrar brought the appeal before the High Court by special leave. It was argued on behalf of the Registrar that the facts within his knowledge as Registrar showed that the transaction was a breach of trust and secondly he was justified in refusing to register the documents. On this Knox C.J. in his judgment at page 53 said:

"What is his duty in such a case? Must he register the dealing, or is he entitled to refuse to register? In my opinion where it has come to the knowledge of the Registrar that a dealing lodged for registration is a breach of trust, or that for any other reason the person dealing with the land as registered proprietor is not competent at law or in equity to deal with it in the manner proposed, it is his duty to refuse to register. I do not suggest nor was it contended that where the Registrar merely suspects that the dealing may be a breach of trust or otherwise improper, but knows no facts to justify him in concluding that it is so, it is any part of his duty, or that he has any right, to ask for information or make inquiries in order to ascertain the true facts. I desire to limit my opinion with regard to his power to refuse registration to those cases in which the facts within his knowledge appear to him to show that the proposed dealing is improper."

Coming back to our case, under Section 322 of the National Land Code so long as a caveat is in force registration, endorsement or entry on the register document of title of any instrument of dealing shall be prohibited. The effect of a private caveat expressed to bind the land itself is to prevent any registered disposition of the land except with the caveator's consent until the caveat is removed. See also Eng Mee Yong & Ors v V Letchumanan [1979] 2 MLJ 212. A caveat freezes the register at least until the caveator has taken court action to determine his claim - Judith Sihombing, page 588. In the Torrens system where registration is the very basis of the system the prohibition in section 322(2) must be strictly complied with. In other words the Registrar is statutorily obliged to refuse the registration because to do so would be a violation of an expressed provision of the National Land Code.

What of the Order of the court referred to by the Registrar? The Order is reproduced in the judgment of the judge but for ease of reference the said Order is reproduced below:

"BY CONSENT IT IS ORDERED that Originating Motion 1 of 1982 beconsolidated with Originating Motion 2 of 1982 and do proceed as one action AND ITIS FURTHER ORDERED that the Respondent in Originating Motion 1 of 1982 and the first respondent in Originating Motion 2 of 1982 undertakes to pay to the Applicant the sum of Ringgit Eight Hundred Thousand (M$800,000-000) only on or before the 30th day of September, 1982 AND IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that on receipt of the payment by the Respondents, the Applicant undertakes to deliver titles EMR 831, Lot No. 2111, GM 298, Lot No. 3804 both in the Mukim and District of Pontian, Johore and EMR 1566 Lot No. 74/80 Volume 6, Folio I AND IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that failure by the Respondents to make payment on or before the said date the Caveat No. 44/81 Volume 6 Folio 95 lodged in respect of EMR 831 Lot 2111, Mukim and District of Pontian, Johore and Caveat No. 43/81 Volume 6 Folio 94 lodged in respect of G.M. 298, Lot No. 3804, Mukim and District of Pontian, Johore and Caveat No. 49/81, Jilid 6 Folio 100 lodged in respect of land held under EMR 1566 Lot No. 1690 in the Mukim and District of Rimba Terjun, Pontian, Johore be removed by the collector forthwith to effect the transfer of the said land into the Applicant's name."

It was a Consent Order concerned with three pieces of land. One of the three pieces was th

Click Here to Read the rest of this document