The registered owner's title may be challenged on grounds of illegality under section 214A of the National Land Code, necessitating evidence to substantiate ownership claims.

[1] This appeal was filed by the appellant/defendant who was aggrieved by the order of the High Court allowing the respondent/plaintiff 's claim for vacant possession of a piece of land in Mukim Ulu Telom, Daerah Cameron Highlands, Negeri Pahang, of which the respondent/plaintiff claimed to be the registered owner; and allowing the respondent/plaintiff 's claim for general damages and exemplary damages to be assessed by the Registrar.

[2] For ease of reference, the parties to this appeal will be referred to in this judgment as they were in the High Court.

The Plaintiff's Claim

[3] The plaintiff filed its writ of summons and statement of claim on 6 January 2011 against the defendant.

[4] According to the plaintiff 's statement of claim, it was at all material times the sole registered owner of a parcel of land measuring approximately 8.094 hectares or 20 acres [the "Subject Land"] held under HS (D) 3805 PT 2279, Mukim Ulu Telom, District of Cameron Highlands, Pahang,

[5] The plaintiff claimed that the defendant had unlawfully occupied the Subject Land and had built permanent structures and fixtures on the land without the plaintiff 's consent.

[6] The plaintiff claimed to have served a notice on the defendant and other occupants of the Subject Land demanding that they quit and deliver up vacant possession of the Subject Land but the notice was ignored.

[7] The plaintiff claimed to have then made a formal demand for vacant possession by way of a notice of demand issued by its solicitors. The defendant still did not vacate the Subject Land.

[8] The plaintiff claimed that the defendant intentionally continued to trespass upon the Subject Land knowing that the income the defendant would make from its occupation of the Subject Land would exceed any amount it might be liable to pay to the plaintiff. Hence the plaintiff 's claim for exemplary damages.

The Defendant's Defence

[9] The defendant in its defence denied being in unlawful occupation. It claimed that it had been in occupation of part of the Subject Land since 1 July 1973. It was allowed into occupation by one Ong Eng Chin. The defendant claimed that the plaintiff knew all along that the defendant was in occupation of the Subject Land.

[10] The defendant also denied that the plaintiff was entitled to vacant possession of the Subject Land.

The Trial

[11] The case proceeded to full trial which took place on 22 April 2013.

[12] The plaintiff adduced oral evidence through PW1, who was a director of the plaintiff. PW1 was the plaintiff 's sole witness.

[13] After the plaintiff closed its case, the defendant submitted that there was no case to answer.

[14] The defendant in its cross-examination of PW1 and in its submissions, raised the issue of illegality in the transfer and registration of the Subject Land to the plaintiff, the illegality being non- compliance with s 214A of the National Land Code 1965 ["NLC"].

[15] The defendant's submission on such illegality was strenuously objected to by the plaintiff on the ground that it was not pleaded.