GROUNDS OF JUDGMENT

Introduction

This was an application for an order for sale under Order 31 of the Rules of the High Court, 1980 ("RHC") read together with section 11 of the Specific Relief Act, 1950 (Act 137) and section 25 of the Courts of Judicature Act, 1964 (Act 91) filed by the plaintiffs as seen in enclosure one (1). In its original text, enclosure one (1) was worded as follows:

"(a) satu perintah daripada Mahkamah Yang Mulia ini membenarkan Plaintif-Plaintif yang dinamakan di atas menjual sebuah hakmilik berdaftar harta berikut iaitu:

(i) hartanah yang dikenali sebagai No. 37A, Tengkat Tong Shin, 50200 Kuala Lumpur yang dipegang di bawah Suratan Hakmilik Geran 24688, No. Lot. 266 Sek 19, Daerah Wilayah Persekutuan, Bandar Kuala Lumpur, Negeri, Wilayah Persekutuan (selepas ini dirujuk sebagai "Hartanah tersebut').

(b) bahawa Defendan dan semua yang menuntut menerusi atau di bawah mereka yang dalam milikan/posesi atau penghunian kini jneninggalkan dan menyerahkan milikan kosong kepada pembeli bangunan yang dibina atas tanah tersebut;

(c) bahawa tarikh jualan ditetapkan menjadi tarikh yang tidak kurang satu (1) bulan dari tarikh perintah;

(d) bahawa harga rezab dan tarikh seterusnya untuk arahan-arahan lain yang berkaitan agar jualan ditetapkan oleh Penolong Kanan Pendaftar Mahkamah Tinggi di Kuala Lumpur;

(e) bahawa kos bagi permohonan ini dan apa-apa yang berkaitan dengan permohonan dan jualan tersebut hendaklah dibayar oleh Defendan kepada Plaintif-Plaintif di luar hasil jualan tersebut; (dan)

(f) mana-mana arahan selanjutnya yang difikirkannya patut dan dianggap adil oleh Mahkamah yang mulia ini."

The defendant vehemently challenged the application for an order for sale as phrased and framed in enclosure one (1).

Facts of the case

Both the plaintiffs and the defendant are brothers. The first plaintiff is the youngest being in the age group of 58 while the second plaintiff is aged 62 and the defendant is aged 60. They are no longer young and they are approaching their twilight years.

The squabbles between the siblings, as usual, revolve on a piece of property.

The plaintiffs and the defendant are the registered joint owners of a flat held under Block Title Geran No: 24688, Lot No: 266, section 19, District of Wilayah Persekutuan, Town of Kuala Lumpur and having postal address at No: 37A, Tengkat Tong Shin, 50200 Kuala Lumpur (hereinafter referred to as the "property"). Each of the three brothers held 1/12 shares to the property.

Although the plaintiffs and the defendant are the registered owners of the property, only the defendant and the defendant's family are presently occupying the said property. In fact, initially the three brothers were staying in the property. But since 1975, only the defendant and his family members occupied the property to the exclusion of both the plaintiffs. To facilitate this mutual arrangement between the brothers, they had verbally agreed that the defendant to pay to both the plaintiffs rental for the 2/12 shares of both the plaintiffs at the rate of RM330.00 per month. This was the arrangement in 1975. It worked pretty well.

In 1995, both the plaintiffs had a change of heart and they requested for an increase of rental up to RM800.00 per month in order to reflect the 2/3 market value of RM1,200.00 at the material time. The defendant resented this increase in rental. The cordial relationship between the three brothers ended.

The plaintiffs then filed a claim in the Magistrate's Court in order to obtain the outstanding rentals from the defendant and the defendant too filed a counterclaim seeking for the return of the rentals paid thus far. On June 12, 2002, the learned Magistrate allowed the plaintiffs' claim and forthwith dismissed the defendant's counterclaim. The defendant has since filed an appeal to the High Court against the decision of the learned Magistrate. The appeal has yet to be disposed of.

There was an attempt to settle the matter amicably in the midst of the trial before th