Back
2025 MarsdenLR 3866
MAHKAMAH TINGGI MALAYA KOTA BHARU
SEAN-LEE (M) SDN BHD LWN. MUHAMMAD NUR HISYAM CHE MAHMOOD
[Saman Pemula No: DA-24NCVC-266-08/2023]
A Sale and Purchase Agreement is valid if signed and partial payment made by both parties, regardless of pending State Authority approval; mutual obligations must be fulfilled to avoid loss of payments.
Headnote:(A) Specific Relief Act 1950 - Section 41 - Contracts Act 1950 - Sections 75 and 76 - The court examined whether the Sale and Purchase Agreement was void and if the return of payments was justified. The court found that the agreement was valid due to mutual performance despite the absence of the State Authority's consent. (Paras 12, 13, 41)
(B) Contract Law - The principle of binding authority - The parties are bound by the pleadings filed in action. Relief was sought for the declaration of void agreement and retention of payments, which were conflicting claims. (Paras 15, 17)
Facts of the case:
The plaintiff, seeking a declaration that the Sale and Purchase Agreement was void and retention of RM2,450,000.00 paid, did not establish grounds for such relief. The defendant made part payments based on a signed agreement involving property transfer. (Paras 1, 9)
Findings of Court:
The court ruled the Sale and Purchase Agreement to be valid and enforceable despite disagreements about performance and obligations, concluding that both parties committed breaches of contract. (Paras 39, 43)
Issues: Whether the agreement was void and if the plaintiff could retain payments while seeking a declaration of invalidity. (Paras 14, 20)
Ratio Decidendi: The court determined that the agreement's conditions did not make it void but merely imposed obligations on both parties to perform despite the lack of consent from the State Authority. Non-performance by either party led to the conclusion that payments could not be kept if the contract lapsed. (Paras 29, 41)
Result: Application dismissed and costs awarded to the defendant, amounting to RM3000,000.00.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. basis for ownership and contract agreement. (Para 1 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 10) |
| 2. legal grounds for plaintiffs' claims. (Para 11 , 12 , 13) |
| 3. court's interpretation of agreements. (Para 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 19 , 32) |
| 4. conditions precedent and contingent contracts. (Para 20 , 21 , 22 , 24 , 29) |
| 5. conclusion on contractual obligations. (Para 39 , 41) |
| 6. final ruling and costs awarded. (Para 42 , 43) |
Pendahuluan
[1] Plaintif dalam Saman Pemula Terpinda (kandungan 15) memohon suatu perintah deklarasi bahawa Perjanjian Jual Beli bertarikh 18 Mei 2022 yang dimasuki antara Plaintif selaku Penjual dengan Defendan selaku Pembeli ("Perjanjian Jual Beli tersebut") berkenaan hartanah PN 3249, Lot 5188, Mukim Panchor, Jajahan Kota Bharu, Kelantan ("Hartanah tersebut") adalah terbatal dan tidak sah, perintah untuk melucutkan wang sejumlah RM2,450,000.00 yang telah diterima daripada Defendan dan perintah kebenaran untuk menjual Hartanah tersebut kepada pihak lain yang berminat.
[2] Setelah membaca dan meneliti kesemua afidavit yang telah difailkan serta mengambil kira penghujahan oleh kedua-dua pihak, maka pada 28 April 2024, Mahkamah ini telah memutuskan bahawa permohonan Plaintif tersebut adalah ditolak.
[3] Terkilan dengan keputusan tersebut, Plaintif memfailkan Notis Rayuan ke Mahkamah Rayuan bertarikh 14 Mei 2024.
Latar Belakang Kes
[4] Plaintif adalah pemilik berdaftar dan benefisial Hartanah tersebut yang berukuran 11,333 meter persegi dengan bangunan didirikan atasnya.
[5] Plaintif selaku penjual dan Defendan selaku pembeli telah memasuki Perjanjian Jual Beli tersebut dengan harga dipersetujui sebanyak RM6,500,000.00, bayaran deposit sebanyak RM1,000,000.00 serta bayaran baki RM5,500,000.00 secara ansuran bulanan yang perlu dibayar oleh Defendan pada setiap 1 haribulan mulai Jun 2022 sehingga selesai.
[6] Pada masa Perjanjian Jual Beli tersebut ditandatangani, terdapat kaveat persendirian didaftarkan atas Hartanah tersebut melalui No Perserahan 982/2021 dan gadaian Hartanah tersebut kepada Maybank Islamic Berhad melalui No Perserahan 3946/2017.
[7] Defendan telah beberapa kali membuat bayaran dengan jumlah keseluruhan RM2,450,000.00 seperti berikut:
[8] Berdasarkan setakat beberapa bayaran tersebut, Plaintif melalui peguamnya telah mengeluarkan notis bertarikh 19 Jun 2023 (ekshibit Y-4 dalam afidavit sokongan) mengingatkan Defendan supaya membayar baki ansuran dan peringatan kegagalan mematuhi notis tersebut akan menyebabkan Perjanjian Jual Beli tersebut ditamatkan.
[9] Seterusnya, setelah tiada lagi bayaran ansuran dijelaskan, maka Plaintif melalui surat bertarikh 17 Julai 2023 (ekshibit Y-5 dalam afidavit sokongan) mengeluarkan notis menamatkan Perjanjian Jual Beli tersebut dan antara lain juga melucutkan semua bayaran yang telah dibuat iaitu sebanyak RM2,450,000.00.
[10] Oleh yang demikian, Plaintif telah memfailkan Saman Pemula Terpinda (kandungan 15) memohon suatu perintah deklarasi bahawa Perjanjian Jual Beli tersebut adalah terbatal dan tidak sah, perintah untuk melucutkan jumlah pembayaran yang telah dibayar setakat hanya RM2,450,000.00 dan perintah kebenaran untuk menjual Hartanah tersebut kepada pihak lain.
Prinsip Undang-Undang
[11] Plaintif membuat permohonan ini berlandaskan kepada Aturan 7, Aturan 28 dan Aturan 92 kaedah 4, Kaedah-Kaedah Mahkamah 2012.
[12] Plaintif juga membuat tuntutan ini berdasarkan s 41 Akta Relief Spesifik 1950 yang memperuntukkan seperti berikut:
"Any person entitled to any legal character, or to any right as to any property, may institute a suit against any person denying, or interested to deny, his title to the character or right, and the court may in its discretion make therein a declaration that he is so entitled, and the plaintiff need not in that suit ask for any further relief:
Provided that no court shall make any such declaration where the plaintiff, being able to seek further relief than a mere declaration or title, omits to do so."
[13] Selain itu, Plaintif juga mensandarkan pe
