JUDGMENT

Elaine Yap Chin Gaik JC:

Introduction

[1] The Plaintiff claims to have beneficial interest to an undivided sub-lot on a piece of land held under master titles Geran No 20043 and 20054 for Lots 10433 and 10444 Mukim Kelang, Selangor Darul Ehsan respectively from a sale and purchase evidenced by an agreement with the vendors dated 27 April 1984.

[2] In 2017, the Plaintiff discovered that the Defendant had fenced up her sub-lot with zinc sheets, built structures on it and was occupying the land with parked trailers without her knowledge or consent. The Defendant claims to be a bona fide purchaser who purchased the said sub-lot from one Krishnan a/l Varathan on 26 June 2012.

[3] In this action, the Plaintiff is suing the Defendant for trespass and seeks orders for vacant possession of said sub-lot, general damages, interest and costs.

Procedural Matters

[4] The action was tried on 7 and 10 October 2024 and the following witnesses gave evidence:

(a) PW-1: Pakiam a/p Kulan, the Plaintiff

(b) PW-2: Velu a/l Ramaiah, the Plaintiff's son

(c) PW-3: Saraswathy a/p Ramaiah, the Plaintiff's daughter

(d) DW-1: Paramasivam a/I Narayanasamy, the Defendant's husband

(e) DW-2: Saradha a/p Kannan, the Defendant

(f) DW-3: Kathiraysen a/l Mapani, owner of another sub-lot

(g) DW-4: Vijayagomaran a/l Mariappan, owner of another sub-lot

[5] In respect of the documentary evidence, there was confusion as to the categorization of the documents. solicitors for the Plaintiff had prepared, filed and served a Common Bundle of Documents in Parts A, B and C, apparently with the agreement of solicitors for the Defendant.

[6] At the trial, either due to oversight or a change of mind, counsel for the Defendant took the position that the Part A documents were not agreed as to content. The Court made a procedural ruling to relegate Part A documents to Part B and that witnesses may be cross examined on the contents of Part A documents.

[7] In respect of documents marked as Part C however, they remained as such and no attempt was made to individually tender them into evidence. Technically, they were not admitted into the body of evidence.

[8] The 3 bundles of documents were marked as follows:

(a) B: Common Bundle of Documents in Parts A, B and C.

(b) B1: Defendant's Additional Bundle of Documents

(c) B2: Defendant's 2nd Additional Bundle of Documents

[9] The Court also had sight of 2 original documents introduced for inspection:

(a) Plaintiff's original Agreement dated 27 April 1984 (the copy of which is at pp 1-15 of Bundle B) ("P's 1984 SPA")

(b) Defendant's original Agreement dated 27 April 1984 (the copy of which is at pp 1-12 of Bundle B2) ("D's 1984 SPA")

[10] D's 1984 SPA was only produced during DW-1's testimony and no copy of that document had been previously tendered in discovery. Bundle B2 was filed following my direction that a copy of D's 1984 SPA be filed so that the evidence is properly before the Court .

The Partie's Contentions

[11] Pursuant to P's 1984 SPA, the Plaintiff purchased what is identified as S. Lot 18-A from the vendors in that sale. According to the recital to P's 1984 SPA, the vendors had purchased a 1312/157480 share of the master titles from Tew Siew Choo and obtained a Power of Attorney from said Tew Siew Choo to deal with the rest of the land.

[12] From the face of P's 1984 SPA, the Plaintiff was one of numerous purchasers of 81 undivided sub-lots on Geran 20043 for Lot 10433 (1-Ato 1-21A) and Geran 20054 for Lot 10444 (1-B to 22-B; 1-C to 22-C; and 1-D to 16-D). According to the Plaintiff's case, P's 1984 SPA was retained as proof of the Plaintiffs purchase and beneficial ownership of S. Lot 18-A and she never parted with possession of it.

[13] PW-1 and PW-3 testified that they discovered the alleged trespass in 2017. There is no documented evidence of this visit to S. Lot 18-A on the discovery of the alleged trespass. However, the Plaintiff registered a private caveat on Geran 20054 for Lot 10444 on 27 September 2019 (which I will say more abou