Statutory limitations under the Limitation Act apply to charge actions, allowing the Chargor to reclaim property title upon the Chargee's inaction within the limitation period.

The Questions Of Law

[1] The initial sole question of law for this Court's determination as granted at the leave stage is as follows:

Main Q1

"In the event the Chargee fails to obtain an Order of Sale timeously or at all, is the Chargor entitled to defeat the registered interest of the Chargee pursuant to s 340(4)(b) of the National Land Code and consequently obtain the return of the issue document of title freed from the security pursuant to s 244(1) of the 1965 read with O 83 r 1(1) of the Rules of 2012?"

[2] Upon application by the Appellant, 5 questions of law were later added for our determination. The further questions are as follows:

Additional Q2

In the event a Chargee fails to file proceedings in Court to obtain a valid and enforceable Order for Sale of the charged land, pursuant to s 256 of the National land Code, within the limitation period prescribed in s 21(1) of the Limitation Act 1953 has the Chargee's interest in the registered charge been thereby determined and/or extinguished by operation of law pursuant to, inter alia, s 340(4)(b) of the National Land Code 1965?

Additional Q3

If the answer to Question 2 above is in the affirmative, is the Chargor's liability under the charge still subsisting? If the answer is that the Chargor's liability under the charge is thereby not subsisting, must the Chargee, in that event, duly return the issue document of title to the Chargor pursuant to s 244(1) of the National Land Code 1965 together with a duly executed registrable Discharge of Charge pursuant to, inter alia, O 83 r 1(f) of the Rules of 2012

Additional Q4

In the absence of any other statutory remedy available to the Chargor against the Chargee, whose interest in the registered charge has been determined and/or extinguished by its failure to exercise the remedies available to it under the relevant provisions of the National Land Code within the Limitation Period prescribed in s 21(1) of the Limitation Act 1953 , is the Chargor thereupon entitled to file proceedings in Court to obtain a Declaratory Judgment (with or without ancillary relief pursuant to O 15 r 16 of the Rules of 2012), as was done by the Appellant in the instant matter?

Additional Q5

Where a Chargee intervenes in an original action between the Third Party Chargor and the actual borrower and the Chargee is consequently added as a defendant in the action pursuant to O 15 r 6(2)(b) of the Rules of 2012 which provides, inter alia, for the Court to ensure that all matters in dispute in the cause or matter may be effectually and completely determined and adjudicated upon, is the Chargor thereupon entitled to contend in the said amended proceedings that the Chargee's rights and/or interest in the registered charge have been determined and/or extinguished by operation of s 21(1) of the Limitation Act 1953 ?

Additional Q6

Ought this Honourable Court revisit the Federal Court judgment in CIMB Bank Bhg v. Sivadevi Sivalingam , [2020] 1 MLJ 583 which held, by a majority, that the proceedings by a Chargee for sale of land, pursuant to ss 256 or 260 of the National Land Code are not subjected to s 21(1) of the Limitation Act 1953 as well as that part of the minority decision of the same Court which decided that the cause of action of the Chargee to approach the Court for an Order of Sale accrues upon the expiry of the period specified in Form 16D of the 1965 and not from the date of the breach by the Chargor to repay the loan and/or its instalments as stipulated in the charge documents?

[3] My learned sisters Justice Hasnah Mohammed Hashim, Justice Mary Lim Thiam Suan and Justice Rhodzariah Bu