SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 MarsdenLR 1336

COURT OF APPEAL PUTRAJAYA
CIMB BANK BERHAD – Appellant
Versus
SUPPIAH S GOVINDASAMY & ORS – Respondent
[Civil Appeal No: P-02(A)-842-07-2020]



Petitioner Advocates:Jeyasingam Balasingam,Kartikumar Seamreasan ,Respondent Advocate: GK Ganesan Kasinathan,Saravanesh Supramaniam,Geetha Kesavan Nair,TP Vaani,JN Lheela,Siti Norain Mohammed

A charge on land of public, religious or charitable trust requires Attorney General's consent; failure to comply invalidates charge.

Headnote:The appeal hinges on the interpretation of s 9(1) of the Government Proceedings Act 1956 regarding the necessity for the Attorney General's consent in the execution and registration of a charge over land designated for public, religious, and charitable purposes. The High Court concluded that the Chargors committed a breach of trust, rendering the charge invalid as it did not comply with necessary legal provisions. The appeal questions whether the Plaintiff was required to obtain consent under s 9(1) and whether the parties involved had the capacity to charge the designated land. Ultimately, the court found that the Plaintiff's registration of the charge was valid and thus ordered the sale of the land as per the applicable laws.

Table of Content
1. whether ag's consent required in charging public trust property. (Para 1 , 2 , 3)
2. context of the trust associated with the land. (Para 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8)
3. details regarding legal proceedings and agreements entered. (Para 9)
Wong Kian Kheong JCA:

A. Introduction

[1] This appeal concerns, among others, a novel question of whether a chargee of land under the National Land Code ( NLC ) is required by s 9(1) of the Government Proceedings Act 1956 ( GPA ) to obtain the Attorney General's (AG) written consent before executing and registering the charge over the land which is:

(1) the subject matter of public, religious and charitable trust; and

(2) used as a Hindu burial ground.

B. Background

[2] We shall refer to the parties as they were before the High Court .

[3] By an indenture dated 12 March 1896 (Indenture), a public, religious and charitable trust (Trust) over three lots of land in Jelutong, Penang (3 Lots) was created for the benefit of the "Hindu Community of Jelutong". The 3 Lots are lot nos 64, 83 and 84.

[4] The 3 Lots are managed by a Hindu "Temple Committee" (Committee).

[5] A Hindu temple was built on lot no 64 while lots no 83 and 84 were used as a Hindu burial ground (2 Burial Lots).

[6] Mr S Muthiah A/L Vellasamy (Muthiah) was the sole surviving trustee of the Trust. Muthiah refused to cooperate with the Committee and secretly (without the Committee's knowledge) obtained a High Court order on 10 February 1993 to appoint Mr Subramaniam A/L Muthusamy (Subramaniam) as a co-trustee of the Trust.

[7] Muthiah passed on and without the Committee's knowledge, on 1 November 1995, Subramaniam applied to the High Court for an order to appoint Subramaniam's wife, Madam Lalidah A/P Sinnasamy (2nd Defendant), as a co-trustee of the Trust.

[8] This judgment shall refer to Subramaniam and the 2nd Defendant collectively as the "Chargors".

[9] On 6 September 1999, the AG gave written consent pursuant to s 9(1) GPA for the Chargors to file an application to the High Court for leave to develop the 3 Lots [AG's Written Consent (6 September 1999)].

[10] Following the AG's Written Consent (6 September 1999), the Chargors filed an originating summons (OS) in the High Court on 2 November 1999 for leave to develop the 3 Lots [Chargors' OS (Leave to Develop 3 Lots)].

[11] On 8 December 1999, the High Court allowed the Chargors' OS (Leave to Develop 3 Lots) [High Court 's Leave (8 December 1999)].

[12] The Chargors entered into a joint venture agreement dated 1 January 2005 (JV Agreement) with Sumita Development Sdn Bhd (Developer). With regard to the Developer:

(1) the Chargors owned 60% of the shares in the Developer and were its directors; and

(2) two children of the Chargors were directors of the Developer and held 40% of its shares.

[13] On 9 March 2005, the Chargors rejected the Committee's nomination for 3 additional co-trustees of the Trust.

[14] The Developer applied for the following banking facilities from the plaintiff bank (Plaintiff):

(1) an overdraft facility in a sum of RM800,000.00 (OD Facility); and

(2) a bridging loan of an amount of RM2.4 million ( Banking Facilities).

[15] The Developer's repayment of the Banking Facilities to the Plaintiff was secured by the Chargors' execution of a third-party charge over the 2 Burial Lots in favour of the Plaintiff (Third Party Charge). The Third Party Charge was registered under the NLC on 29 December 2010.

[16] On 3 June 2011, at the request of the Plaintiff, the Chargors and Developer jointly filed an OS in the High Court [OS (Chargors-Developer)]. The OS (Chargors-Developer) prayed for leave of the High Court for the following matters:

(1) leave for the Chargors and Developer to transact any dealing under the NLC with regard to the 2 Burial Lots;

(2) leave of the High Court for the registration of the Third Party Charge;

(3) leave for the JV Agreement; and

(4) the Registrar of Titles of Penang (RT) and all relevant authorities shall give effect to the order of t

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top