Back
HIGH COURT MALAYA SHAH ALAM
VIMALA MARUTHAMUTHOO – Appellant
Versus
PAUL MONASH NARAYANASAMY – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. plaintiff's application for removal of caveat. (Para 1 , 2 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7) |
| 2. defendant's claims and opposing arguments. (Para 8 , 9 , 10) |
| 3. requisite legal framework for caveat removal. (Para 11 , 12 , 13 , 14) |
| 4. court's findings on defendant's interest and delay. (Para 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20) |
| 5. court's conclusion on caveat validity. (Para 21 , 22 , 23) |
Introduction
[1] Enclosure 1 is the Plaintiff's application made pursuant to ss National Land Code , ss 327, 329, 417 of the 1965 ( NLC 1965) seeking an order to remove the private caveat lodged by the Defendant, Paul Monash a/l Narayanasamy, on 3 April 2024 over the property held under Geran 339999, Lot 126483, Mukim Dengkil, Daerah Sepang, Negeri Selangor (the Property).
[2] The Plaintiff's application was premised on the assertion that the Defendant has no caveatable interest in the Property, and that the continued presence of the caveat causes serious prejudice to the Plaintiff, who has fully performed her obligations under a valid sale and purchase transaction.
[3] Prior to the decision of this application, the Court had, via encl 6, dismissed the application by one Kavitah a/p Vathuma
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
