Back
2016 MarsdenLR 2522
HIGH COURT MALAYA MALACCA
NG LI LIN (P) – Appellant
Versus
TING TIAN HWA – Respondent
[Originating Summons No: 24NCVC-444-12-2015]
A spouse's right to a share in matrimonial assets is indeterminate until a court order is made, rendering such rights non-caveatable under the National Land Code.
Headnote:Statute Analysis: This case concerns the application under sections 327 to 329 of the National Land Code (NLC) for removal of a private caveat. Facts of the Case: The plaintiff, a registered proprietor, seeks to remove the caveat lodged by the defendant, who claims a beneficial interest in the property.
Findings of Court:
The Court found that the defendant failed to establish a caveatable interest.
Issues: The primary issue was whether the defendant had a valid caveatable interest as defined under the NLC.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court reasoned that a spouse's claim to a caveatable interest over property registered in the other spouse's name is contingent and not presently enforceable.
Result: The application to remove the caveat was granted.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. legal basis for the caveat application. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
[1] This is an application by the plaintiff, under s 327 to 329 of the National Land Code ( NLC ) for orders, inter alia, to remove a private caveat lodged by the defendant, on a piece of land held under Lot No 12105, PN No 36844 at Mukim Bukit Katil, District of Melaka Tengah, Melaka, on which a bungalow is erected bearing postal address No 2, Jalan Vista Kirana 3, Taman Vista Kirana, 75450 Gapam, Melaka (hereinafter referred to as 'the property').
[2] The plaintiff is the registered proprietor of the property. The defendant who is the plaintiff's husband lodged the private caveat vide Presentation No: 4924/2014 registered on 16 October 2014 against the whole of the property (hereinafter referred to as "the caveat").
[3] The plaintiff contends that the caveat ought to be removed pursuant to s 327 of the NLC as the defendant does not have any caveatable interest on the property and consequent thereto prays that damages be assessed as provided under s 329 of the . The defendant contends otherwise and states that he has a caveatable interest on the property and that the caveat ought to remain.
[4] The cause papers filed by the parties are as follows:
i. The originating summons filed herein as encl 1 (hereinafter referred to as "this originating summons"); and
ii. The statement to the originating summons (hereinafter referred to as "the said statement");
iii. The affidavit sworn by the plaintiff on 3 December 2015 in support of this originating summons (hereinafter referred to as "the plaintiff's Affidavit Support"); and
iv. The affidavit sworn by the defendant on 11 April 2016 in reply to the plaintiff's Affidavit Support (hereinafter referred to as "the defendant's Affidavit Reply"); and
v. The affidavit sworn by the plaintiff on 25 April 2016 filed as encl 10 in reply to the defendant's affidavit reply (hereinafter referred to as "the plaintiff's Affidavit Reply 1"); and
vi. The affidavit sworn by the defendant on 5 May 2016 (Afidavit Jawapan No: 2) in reply to the plaintiff's Affidavit Reply 1 (hereinafter referred to as "the defendant's Affidavit Reply 2"); and
vii. The affidavit sworn by the plaintiff on 20 May 2016 filed as encl 11 in reply to the defendant's Affidavit Reply 1 (hereinafter referred to as "the plaintiff's Affidavit Reply 2").
