FEDERAL COURT PUTRAJAYA
UPMARKET DEVELOPMENT SDN BHD – Appellant
Versus
SRIERA DEVELOPMENT SDN BHD – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. background facts establish land ownership dispute. (Para 2) |
| 2. high court's ruling on the caveat's validity challenged. (Para 3 , 6) |
| 3. court of appeal confirmed caveatable interest exists. (Para 4 , 5) |
| 4. legal provisions on caveats and their enforcement. (Para 7 , 12) |
| 5. defects in form 19b debated regarding caveat's validity. (Para 13 , 14 , 15) |
| 6. caveats compared to equitable remedies like injunctions. (Para 20 , 21) |
| 7. balance of convenience critical in caveat matters. (Para 23 , 24 , 26) |
[1] Two questions of law were posed for our determination, namely:
(a) Whether a boundary dispute over a portion of the land between two neighbouring lots which involves the physical aspect of the land i. e. the actual size and not the ownership, rights, title or interest registrable in the document of title, can give rise to a caveatable interest.
(b) Whether a caveator who is claiming a title and/or interest in respect of a part of a land:
(i) who has described the nature of his claim;
(ii) who has explained that the caveat applied for was to protect only that part of the land.
is further required by s 322 (1) of the National Land Code 1965 to expressly state
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.