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

2025 MarsdenLR 2536

HIGH COURT MALAYA SHAH ALAM
VISIBER SDN BHD – Appellant
Versus
PENTADBIR TANAH DAERAH PETALING & ANOR – Respondent
[Originating Summons No: BA-24NCvC-771-04/2025]



Petitioner Advocates:N Subramaniam,Lily Ho,Melissa Ong Wi Xin ,Respondent Advocate: Amira Haziqah Zulkifli

The court upheld that a Registrar's Caveat lodged under the National Land Code was valid, emphasizing the need for substantiated claims rather than allegations of fraud without investigation.

Headnote:(A) National Land Code - Sections 319, 320, 321(3), 417, and 418 - Registrar's Caveat - Plaintiff sought to withdraw and cancel a Registrar's Caveat lodged by the First Defendant based on allegations of a false police report - Court addressed the application and the principle of res judicata - The grounds for the Registrar's Caveat were valid and conformed to statutory requirements. (Paras 40-46)

(B) Fraud - The principle that 'fraud unravels all' was discussed in relation to the Second Defendant’s allegations. (Paras 47)

(C) Court's decision regarding the scope of declaratory reliefs in relation to ongoing criminal proceedings as elucidated in relevant case law. (Paras 48)

Facts of the case:
The Plaintiff, Visiber Sdn Bhd, challenged a caveat lodged by the First Defendant concerning the ownership of land, asserting prior legal victory against the Second Defendant regarding the same land. The Second Defendant countered the Plaintiff's claims asserting wrongdoing. (Paras 5-11, 40-46)

Findings of Court:
The Court concluded that the Registrar's Caveat was lawfully registered and that the Plaintiff's claims did not hold merit. (Paras 44-50)

Issues: The key issues were the Plaintiff’s entitlement to withdraw the Registrar's Caveat and the implications of the doctrine of res judicata. (Paras 3-4)

Ratio Decidendi: The court affirmed the validity of the statutory grounds for lodging the caveat, negating the Plaintiff's claims under res judicata. (Paras 44-46)

Result: Application dismissed with costs.

Table of Content
1. immediate cancellation of registrar's caveat requested. (Para 1 , 3 , 5 , 8)
2. contentions of parties regarding caveat. (Para 2 , 19 , 20 , 30)
3. plaintiff's acquisition of kayu ara land. (Para 10 , 11 , 12 , 18)
4. court's analysis of caveat's legitimacy. (Para 40 , 41 , 44)
5. court dismissed plaintiff's application. (Para 50)
Choong Yeow Choy JC:

Introduction

[1] At the core of the Plaintiff's application in encl 1 lies a principal request. The relief sought is the immediate withdrawal and cancellation of the Registrar's Caveat. In addition, the Plaintiff seeks further reliefs specifically directed against the Second Defendant.

[2] The submissions exchanged between the parties reveal a striking feature, that is, each side accuses the other of resorting to a 'backdoor approach' in pursuit of their respective objectives. These allegations underscore the contentious and tactical nature of the proceedings.

The Key Issues

[3] The principal issues are:

First, whether the Plaintiff is entitled to have the Registrar's Caveat withdrawn and cancelled; and

Second, whether the Plaintiff is entitled to general, exemplary and injunctive reliefs against the Second Defendant.

[4] In determining the first of the two principal issues, questions that have arisen include (i) whether the Plaintiff is entitled to rely on the doctrine of res judicata; and (ii) whether fraud has been established, as averred by the Defendants.

The Parties

[5] The Plaintiff, Visiber Sdn Bhd, is a company registered in Malaysia pursuant to the provisions of the Companies Act 1965 and is the registered owner of the land held under Hakmilik No.PM 3812 Lot 13964 Tempat Kampong Sungai Kayu Ara, Pekan Kayu Ara, Daerah Petaling, Negeri Selangor ("Kayu Ara Land").

[6] The First Defendant is the Pejabat Daerah dan Tanah Petaling, a government body involved with the administration of land matters in the District of Petaling.

[7] The Second Defendant, Kok Low Kau, is an individual having an address at No. 212, Kg. Cempedak, Sungai Way, Selangor.

The Prayers In The Originating Summons

[8] By way of encl 1, the Plaintiff had prayed for the following reliefs:

(a) for an order that the Registrar's Caveat [RC] bearing presentation number 08B4381/2024 lodged unlawfully and without basis on land held under Hakmilik No.PM 3812 Lot 13964 Tempat Kampong Sungai Kayu Ara, Pekan Kayu Ara, Daerah Petaling, Negeri Selangor [Kayu Ara Land] on 18 October 2024 at 12.21 pm. by the Pendaftar Pejabat Daerah dan Tanah Petaling pursuant to a police report bearing number DAMANSARA/014514/24 lodged by the Second Defendant [D2] on 27 September 2024 at Petaling Jaya Police Station be withdrawn and cancelled forthwith.

b) for an order that D2 pay general damages to the Plaintiff for all losses arising from the lodging of the RC which has caused a breach of the Joint Venture Agreement dated 5 January 2018 between the Plaintiff and the Developer, Laubros Ion World Sdn Bhd.

c) D2 by himself and/or his agents and/or his nominees and or partners and or anyone instructed by D2 be prohibited from commencing, filing or proceeding with any Court action and/or Court proceeding including but not limited to any application for any injunction and/or interim injunction and/or ad interim injunction and/or any other application in any form whatsoever in order to affect, prejudice, halt, hinder and /or to cause a failure of the Joint Venture Project between the Plaintiff and other parties or the management of the said Kayu Ara Land.

(d) General damages be assessed and be paid by D2;

(e) Exemplary damages be paid by D2;

(f) Costs; and

(g) Any further or other relief that the Court deems fit and proper.

[9] This Originating Summons in encl 1 is resisted by the First and the Second Defendants.

The Plaintiff's Version Of Events And Contentions

[10] The Plaintiff asserted that it had purchased the Kayu Ara Land from a company, Shabana Sdn Bhd, by way of a Sale and Purchase Agreement dated 31 December 2013.

[11] There was a civil suit

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