JUDGMENT

Quay Chew Soon J:

Introduction

[1] This is a family dispute over property. The Plaintiff ("P") is the mother of the 1st Defendant ("D1") and the mother - in - law of the 2nd Defendant. The Defendants are husband and wife.

[2] P's action against the Defendants is for: (i) delivery of vacant possession of a house; and (ii) the return of a motor vehicle. The Defendants in turn counterclaim against P for a declaration that the house and the motor vehicle were gifted to and therefore belongs to them. In relation to the house, the Defendants seek a declaration that the house is theirs in equal shares.

[3] After a full trial, I allowed P's claim and dismissed the Defendants' counterclaim. Here are the grounds of my judgment.

Background Facts

[4] P is the registered owner of the following assets: (i) a landed property situated at Taman Pandan, Butterworth, Penang ("house"); and (ii) a Nissan X - Trail motor vehicle ("vehicle").

[5] Besides D1, P has three other children. Namely: (i) PW3 (Derick Ong); (ii) Melissa Ong; and (iii) PW2 (Michelle Ong). At all material times, P and her family lived in the house since the year 2006.

[6] According to P, she and her other children (PW2 and PW3) were forced to move out from the house around November 2022 due to DTs harassment and threats. The Defendants have retained occupation of the house and usage of the vehicle ever since. After being forced to leave the house, P and her other children (PW2 and PW3) have since lived in a rented premise at Gurney Condominium, Georgetown, Penang.

[7] As the Defendants refused to move out of and return the house and the vehicle, P commenced this action against them in October 2023. P's claim is: (i) to evict the Defendants from the house in order to recover vacant possession of the same; (ii) to recover the vehicle; and (iii) to claim for damages.

[8] In their counterclaim, the Defendants aver that the house and the vehicle have been gifted to them by P. They pray for a declaration that the house and the vehicle are theirs. And in the case of the house, in equal shares.

Issues For Determination

[9] The principal issue for determination is whether P, being the registered owner, is entitled to vacant possession of the house and the return of the vehicle. Or whether the house and the vehicle were meant to be a gift from P to the Defendants.

[10] It is my finding that the house and the vehicle were never gifted by P to the Defendants. Accordingly, P is entitled to vacant possession of the house and the return of the vehicle, as the registered owner of the same.

[11] Here are my reasons.

As The Registered Owner, The Plaintiff Is Entitled To Vacant Possession Of The House And The Return Of The Vehicle

[12] It is indisputable that P is the registered and legal owner of the house and the vehicle. The title of the house and the registration certificate of the vehicle were tendered as evidence during the trial.

The Title Of The House

[13] The registration of P as the proprietor of the house is conclusive evidence that the title is vested in her name. She is prima facie the owner of the house. (See the Federal Court decision in Teh Bee v. K Maruthamuthu; [1977] 2 MLJ 7).

[14] As the registered owner of the house, P is entitled to vacant possession of the same. (See the Court of Appeal decisions in Wong Yew Kwan v. Wong Yu Ke & Anor; [2009] 2 MLJ 672; [2010] 2 CLJ 703 at 713; and Ahmad Shazilly Ismail Bakti v. Nik Salma Zaidah Hj Wan Mohd Zaid; [2014] 5 CLJ 817 at 837).

The Registration Certificate Of The Vehicle

[15] In respect of the vehicle, s 117 of the Road Transport Act 1987 stipulates that when a person is named as the owner of a motor vehicle in a registration certificate, that person is prima facie the owner of the said motor vehicle.

[16] Section 13 of the Road Transport Act 1987 sets out the procedure on change of possession of a motor vehicle. It stipulates that on any change of possession of a motor vehicle, the new possessor needs to be registered as the new owner in