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

2025 MarsdenLR 3421

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 chargee under the National Land Code is not required to obtain the Attorney General's consent prior to executing a valid charge over land designated for public charitable trust, provided no fraud is involved.

Headnote:(A) Government Proceedings Act 1956 - Section 9(1) - National Land Code - Charge over land subject to public charitable trust and Hindu burial ground - Court decided that chargee was not required to obtain Attorney General's consent for executing charge due to the nature of the transaction - The Chargors breached the trust, and the Third Party Charge registered under the NLC was void ab initio as the Chargors had no capacity to charge properties for banking facilities and due to concealment of material facts - High Court's decision regarding public policy concerns was erroneous, and the charge was deemed valid and indefeasible despite the appeal - Appeal allowed and the charge action reinstated. (Paras 43, 46, 67, and 70)

Facts of the case:
The appeal concerned the validity of a charge executed over land designated for public, religious, and charitable trust amid allegations of breach of trust and failure to obtain the necessary governmental consent. The Chargors mismanaged trust obligations, leading to judicial involvement to appoint new trustees and challenge the legality of the charge. The Plaintiff bank sought enforcement of the charge against claims of invalidity.

Findings of Court:
The Court found that the High Court erred in holding that the Third Party Charge was void and ruled that the Plaintiff's banking security was valid, despite the earlier breach by the Chargors. It held that the Plaintiff was not privy to any fraud or breach that would invalidate the charge.

Issues: The main questions included the requirement of consent under Section 9(1) GPA for charges, the capacity of the Chargors to act, and whether the Plaintiff was party to any fraudulent activity.

Ratio Decidendi: The Court determined that the introduction and registration of the charge did not require consent due to its distinct nature, emphasizing that negligence does not equate to being a party to fraud. Further, the Plaintiff's prior consent and their due diligence in securing the charge were deemed sufficient for validation under NLC provisions.

Result: Appeal allowed; the High Court's decision set aside, and the charge action was validated.

Table of Content
1. novel question regarding ag's consent (Para 1 , 2)
2. creation and management of trust (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8)
3. ag's consent for development activities (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 the High Court granted in the OS (Chargors-Developer).

[17] On 6 July 2011, the High

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