Back
2025 MarsdenLR 176
HIGH COURT MALAYA SHAH ALAM
NESTCITY PROPERTY SDN BHD – Appellant
Versus
PENGHUNI-PENGHUNI ATAS TANAH / SESIAPA YANG MENDUDUKI DI ATAS TANAH YAN.... – Respondent
[Originating Summons No: BA-24NCvC-2111-10/2023]
The registered proprietor's indefeasible title under the National Land Code prevails over claims by unregistered occupiers, affirming that occupancy without consent results in wrongful occupation, lacking grounds for compensation.
Headnote:(A) National Land Code 1965 - Sections 5, 214, 340 - Order 89 of the Rules of Court 2012 - Summary order for possession of land - The Plaintiff, as the lawful attorney of the registered proprietor, sought possession of land occupied by Defendants without lawful consent - The court reaffirmed that the concept of indefeasibility of title prevails over claims of beneficial ownership by the Occupiers who lacked registrable interests, which constituted wrongful occupation. (Paras 10, 17, 25, 29)
(B) Definition of License - The court clarified that a license confers no property interest and is essentially a personal obligation, making the Occupiers, at best, gratuitous licensees without rights against the Owner. (Paras 18, 29)
Facts of the case:
The Owner of the land granted a Power of Attorney to the Plaintiff for development, and the Occupiers claimed beneficial ownership based on past purchases of sub-lots. The Plaintiff sought possession through an originating summons after issuing a notice to quit to all occupants.
Findings of Court:
The court allowed possession, asserting there were no triable issues since the Occupiers’ claims do not confer any registrable rights over the land.
Issues: The primary issue was the legality of occupancy of the land without the Owner's consent and the entitlement to possession without compensation.
Ratio Decidendi: The court reasoned that the registered proprietor's rights are conclusively protected under the National Land Code and the absence of any legal right or equitable claim by the Occupiers justified the order for possession.
Result: Originating Summons allowed with costs payable by the opposing parties.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. summary order for possession proceedings (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 2. power of attorney granted for possession of land (Para 6 , 7 , 8) |
| 3. entitlement to summary order for possession (Para 9 , 10) |
| 4. no compensation for unlicensed occupiers (Para 11 , 12 , 19) |
| 5. historical context of land title and ownership (Para 13 , 14 , 15) |
| 6. nature of ownership and licenses under nlc (Para 16 , 17 , 18) |
| 7. equitable concepts not applicable under nlc (Para 20 , 21 , 22) |
| 8. indefeasibility of registered title rights (Para 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27) |
| 9. gratuitous licensees and notice to quit (Para 28 , 29) |
Introduction
[1] The Originating Summons in this action is for a summary order for possession of the land held under Hakmilik GM 5231, Lot 788, Mukim Kapar, Daerah Klang, Selangor Darul Ehsan and with an address at Lot 788, Taman Karuppiah, Padang Jawa, 40200 Shah Alam, Selangor Darul Ehsan ("Land").
[2] By the time the Originating Summons was heard, all but a handful of the Defendants had entered into settlement with the Plaintiff and the registered proprietor of the Land and Consent Judgments were entered accordingly.
[3] The 5th Defendant was represented by solicitors who had a pending application to discharge themselves for want of instructions. He had neither settled with the Plaintiff nor did his solicitors offer any submissions at the hearing. The 1st Defendant refers to all other unidentified and unrepresented occupiers on the Land.
[4] The 3 Defendants who actively opposed the Originating Summons were (collectively, the "Occupiers")
(a) the 8th and 9th Defendants, represented by the 9th Defendant who is the daughter and administrator of the estate of the 8th Defendant (deceased); and
(b) the 29th Defendant, represented by solicitors who on the morning of the hearing, reported that they had been discharged by the 29th Defendant who changed her mind about settling with the Plaintiff.
[5] I allowed the Originating Summons after hearing submissions from the 9th Defendant in person and counsel for the 29th Defendant and after giving the matter anxious consideration. These are my reasons.
Background Facts
[6] The registered proprietor of the Land is one Ching Teck Kee ("Owner"). On 23 May 2016, he granted a Power of Attorney to the Plaintiff to take all necessary action for an intended development of the Land. This included the power to warn off and prohibit and if necessary proceed against all trespassers including squatters occupying the Land.
[7] The Owner had acquired the Land with vacant possession from one Saviournathan A/L M.R. Sengol in a sale and purchase agreement dated 25 March 2010 for RM700,000.00. Title was duly transferred at the land office registry under Presentation No: 3467/2010 on 21 April 2010.
[8] No caveats or restrictions prevented that transfer even though it is not disputable that there were clearly occupiers on the Land at the time of the purchase. On 4 September 2023, a notice was issued by the Plaintiff to all occupiers of the Land identified as the named Defendants to quit and vacate the Land within 30 days.
Issues For Determination
[9] As the registered proprietor, the Owner through the Plaintiff as his lawful attorney, claimed possession of the Land under O 89 of the Rules of Court 2012 which provides:
"Where a person claims possession of land which he alleges is occupied solely by a person or persons (not being a tenant or tenants holding over after the termination of the tenancy) who entered into or remained in occupation without his licence or consent or that of any predecessor in title of his, the proceedings may be brought by originating summons in accordance with the provisions of this Order."
[10] The only issue for determination in this action is whether the Plaintiff is entitled to a summary order for possession of the Land without paying compensation to the Occupiers who had "entered into or remained in occupation without his licence or consent or that of any predecessor in titl
