JUDGMENT

Helmi Hamzah JC:

(Enclosure 1)

Introduction

[1] The plaintiffs are the co-proprietors of a piece of land registered as HS(M) 10767 PT 7896 Kg Seri Kembangan, Mukim Petaling, Daerah Petaling, Negeri Selangor Darul Ehsan ("Plaintiffs' Land").

[2] The defendant is the proprietor of a piece of land registered as HS(D) 191004 PT 616, Mukim Pekan Serdang, Daerah Petaling, Negeri Selangor Darul Ehsan ("Defendant's Land"). The defendant's Land is adjacent to the Plaintiffs' Land.

[3] Before Lee Mee Ha (the previous proprietor of the Defendant's Land) sold the Defendant's Land to the defendant for a valuable consideration of RM1,000,000.00, Lee Mee Ha and her family erected fencing and structures on a particular section of the Plaintiffs' Land.

[4] According to the plaintiffs, the fencing and structures built by the previous proprietors of the Defendant's Land are still placed in the Plaintiffs' Land even after the defendant became the new registered proprietor of the Defendant's Land.

[5] Since the fencing and structures are not removed, the trespass continues.

[6] The defendant denies any liability and intends to shift all the responsibilities to Lee Mee Ha.

[7] This case involves the issues of continuing trespass and the liabilities of the defendant as the new proprietor of the Defendant's Land.

Enclosure 1 — Originating Summons

[8] In encl 1, the plaintiffs seek, among other things:

(a) an order for vacant possession of the encroached area;

(b) a mandatory injunction for the defendant to remove the existing fencing and structures built on the encroached area;

(c) a mandatory injunction for the defendant to erect new fencing that clearly defines the boundaries between the Plaintiffs' Land and the Defendant's Land;

(d) damages;

(e) cost; and

(f) 5% interest per annum on the judgment sum.

[9] The defendant opposed encl 1 and contended, among others, that:

(a) the defendant only purchased the Defendant's Land from Lee Mee Ha in 2024;

(b) the defendant was not aware of any erection of fencing and structures on the Plaintiffs' Land made by Lee Mee Ha and the other previous proprietors of the Defendant's Land;

(c) even if the plaintiffs' allegation was justified, the alleged erection of the fencing and structures occurred before the defendant purchased the Defendant's Land. On that basis, the defendant should not be held liable for the conduct of the previous proprietors of the Defendant's Land;

(d) nothing was mentioned in the Sale and Purchase Agreement dated 12 March 2024, entered into between the defendant and Lee Mee Ha ("SPA"), about the erection of fencing and structures on the Plaintiffs' Land by Lee Mee Ha or other previous proprietors of the Defendant's Land;

(e) Lee Mee Ha had misrepresented the defendant. Lee Mee Ha had breached the SPA. Therefore, Lee Mee Ha should be held accountable for all the non-disclosures, misrepresentations, or breaches of the SPA.

[10] On 27 August 2025, I heard oral submissions by the solicitors of both parties.

[11] After considering all cause papers, written submissions and oral submissions, I only allowed part of the prayers in encl 1 with cost of RM5,000.00 as follows:

(a) the defendant is to deliver vacant possession of the encroached area within 14 days from the date of the decision of encl 1;

(b) the defendant is to pay the plaintiffs a sum of RM550.00 per month for rental from 1 June 2024 until the delivery of vacant possession of the encroached area;

(c) the defendant is to pay the plaintiffs a sum of RM2,500.00 being the cost incurred to prepare the Plaintiffs' Land Survey Report; and

(d) the defendant is to pay the plaintiffs interest at the rate of 5% per annum on the judgment sum to be calculated from 14 February 2025 (the date of the filing of encl 1) until full and final settlement of the same.

[12] I will now give my reasons for doing so.

Analysis

Issue No 1 — Continuing Trespass (Actions De Die In Diem)

[13] The plaintiffs' Land was initially owned by their grandfather, then passed to their mother, and late