The court ruled that a Proposed Intervener requires a sufficient legal basis to justify intervention, emphasizing the distinction between legal and commercial interests in evaluating such applications.

Introduction

[1] In this Originating Summons, the Plaintiff seeks the removal of a private caveat lodged by the Defendant. During the proceedings, a separate application was filed under Encl 7 by a Proposed Intervener, requesting leave to intervene and be added as a Co-Defendant in this suit.

[2] This decision addresses the application set out in Encl 7.

The Prevailing Issue

[3] The central question in this case is whether this Court should exercise its discretion to grant the application in Encl 7. Consequently, the pertinent issue for this Court to consider is whether the Proposed Intervener has established a sufficient legal basis or interest to justify his intervention, as outlined by the Federal Court in Chong Fook Sin v. Amanah Raya Bhd & Ors 2010 MarsdenLR 1586 ; [2011] 1 MLJ 721 ; (' Chong Fook Sin ').

The Parties and the Pertinent Background Facts

[4] To address the issue outlined in the preceding paragraph, it is essential that we are apprised of the background facts and claims made by the respective parties.

[5] The Plaintiff is Kejendran a/l Nadarajan ("Kejendran").

[6] The Defendant is Kavitah a/p Vathumalai ("Kavitah"), while the Proposed Intervener is Paul Monash a/l Narayanasamy ("Paul").

[7] In the main Originating Summons, Kejendran seeks the removal of a private caveat lodged by the Kavitah.

[8] The land in question is registered in the names of Kejendran, his late brother, and his mother, Mardai @ Ratha a/p Ponusamy ("Mardai"), each holding an equal share. Mardai passed away on 14 October 2023.

[9] Kejendran and Mardai entered into a Sale and Purchase Agreement on 11 April 2023 to sell the said land to Vimala a/p Maruthamuthoo ("Vimala").

[10] However, the transfer of the land could not be completed, as Kejendran later discovered that Kavitah had lodged a private caveat against the land on 10 July 2023.

[11] This prompted Kejendran to file the present Originating Summons on 15 April 2024 against Kavitah, seeking an order for the removal of the private caveat.

[12] Interestingly, Paul had also lodged a private caveat against the same land on 3 April 2024. This led to the filing of a separate Suit BA-24 NCvC-1007-05/2024 ("Suit 1007") - in another Court, for the removal of Paul's caveat, with Vimala as the Plaintiff.

[13] In Suit 1007, Paul was the Defendant in the main application for the removal of the caveat, and Kavitah had applied to intervene. The High Court at Shah Alam in Suit 1007 disallowed Kavitah's application to intervene and granted Vimala's Originating Summons to remove Paul's caveat.

The Parties' Respective Contentions

[14] The Plaintiff, Kejendran, vigorously opposed Encl 7, arguing that Paul lacks the requisite legal interest under the law to intervene in the present proceedings.

[15] Kejendran maintained that the basis for Kavitah's caveat registration was an alleged 'agreement' between Kejendran and Kavitah. Consequently, Kejendran contended that Paul has no legal standing or interest to intervene in this matter.

[16] In fact, Kavitah had lodged the caveat on the grounds that Kejendran had entered into a Sale and Purchase Agreement with her in 2012.

[17] However, Paul, in support of his application, made the following averments:

1. That Kejendran and Mardai had entered into a Sale and Purchase Agreement with him on 25 January 2012;

2. That he had lodged a private caveat on 3 April 2024;

3. That he, together with Kavitah, had been settling the monthly instalments to Citibank from 2013 to 2023;

4.