Abdul Aziz Mohamad J:

On 15 July 2002 we dismissed the appellant company's notice of motion for an order under s. 44 of the Courts of Judicature Act 1964 staying the execution of an order of the High Court at Kuala Lumpur made on 7 May 2002 pending the appellants' appeal to this court against that order, which was an order for the removal of a private caveat entered by the appellants against three lands whose registered owner was at all material times a company whose former name was Kredin Sdn Bhd ("Kredin"). The appellant company were a shareholder in Kredin. The High Court had dismissed the appellants' application for a stay of execution.

The High Court had, on 18 March 1985 and under s. 256 of the National Land Code, ordered the three lands to be sold by public auction. At the sale on 12 July 1993 the respondents were the successful bidder. On 6 August 1993 Form 16F was received by the respondents.

Form 16F is a certificate of sale, signed by the proper officer of the court, which according to s. 259(3) of the National Land Code the purchaser at a sale under s. 256 is entitled to receive upon payment to the officer of the full amount of the purchase price and which, according to s. 267, is registrable by the purchaser as if it were an instrument of dealing. As in every other case, the certificate of sale received by the respondents in this case acknowledged receipt of the full amount of the purchase price.

Despite obtaining Form 16F, the respondents could not be registered as the proprietor of the lands because of the existence of caveats by Kredin against the lands. There were five caveats entered on different dates.

On 14 November 2000, on the respondents' petition, Kredin were ordered to be wound up for failure to pay a debt of RM8,447,433.76.

Of Kredin's five caveats, one lapsed, and the other four the respondents successfully applied to be removed. The last caveat to be removed was removed on 17 September 2001.

Eleven days later, on 28 September 2001, the appellants entered the caveat the removal of which by the High Court on 7 May 2002 is the subject of a pending appeal to this court by the appellants.

According to s. 323(1) of the National Land Code, a private caveat may be entered only at the instance of the following persons or bodies:

(a) any person or body claiming title to, or any registrable interest in, any alienated land or any right to such title or interest;

(b) any person or body claiming to be beneficially entitled under any trust affecting any such land or interest; and

(c) the guardian or next friend of any minor claiming to be entitled as mentioned in paragraph (b).

Subsection (2) of s. 323 requires the applicant for the entry of a private caveat to state in the application, Form 19B, "the nature of the claim on which his application is based". To comply with that requirement, what the appellants stated in their application form was that the respondents had obtained the Form 16F, the certificate of sale, without payment of the purchase price and that the appellants' purpose in entering the caveat was to ensure that Kredin's registered proprietorship of the lands was not lost.

On 14 February 2002 the appellants filed a writ action against the respondents (S7-22-162-2002) seeking certain declarations, one of which is a declaration that the respondents have not purchased the lands. The appellants' reason for alleging that the respondents had not purchased the lands may be inferred from para. 12(6) of the statement of claim where it is alleged that the respondents had paid to the court only 10% the purchase price and not the full amount of the purchase price. Paragraph 17 of the statement of claim states that the appellants had lodged the private caveat "to protect its caveatable interest pending due determination of the issues herein to maintain the status quofrom being irreparable (sic)lost".

In submission before us the respondents' counsel admitted that the purchase price (or part of it) was pa