JUDGMENT

Choong Yeow Choy J:

Introduction

[1] This matter comes before the Court by way of an Originating Summons filed by the plaintiff, Kantharubi a/p P Krishnan, who seeks, inter alia, the following reliefs:

• That the Private Caveat registered by the defendant on 31 March 2022 over the property known as GRN 301543, Lot 1502, Bandar Kundang, Mukim Rawang, Gombak, Selangor ("the Property") be cancelled forthwith pursuant to s 327 of the National Land Code 1965 ("NLC").

• A declaration that the plaintiff is the sole and rightful owner of the said Property by virtue of a Deed of Gift dated 13 February 1987, executed by the then-registered proprietors, Tan Chong Beng and Yeo Chooi Bow.

• In the alternative, a declaration that the plaintiff has valid legal rights to the Property under the said Deed of Gift, and that the defendant holds no legal interest sufficient to justify the lodging of the Private Caveat.

• Costs to be borne by the defendant.

[2] The Plaintiff asserts exclusive rights over the Property by virtue of the Deed of Gift, and challenges the validity of any competing claim or interest purportedly held by the defendant. The Defendant, in contrast, maintains that her interest arises under a pre-existing Deed of Trust, and that the caveat serves to protect a legitimate beneficial interest.

[3] At the heart of this dispute, then, lies what may be described, with some aptness, as "my Deed of Gift versus your Deed of Trust."

Core Issues

[4] Two primary issues fall for the Court 's determination:

1. Whether the Plaintiff is the lawful and sole owner of the Property by virtue of the Deed of Gift dated 13 February 1987; and

2. Whether the Defendant possesses a valid caveatable interest sufficient to justify the lodgement and maintenance of the Private Caveat.

The Plaintiff's Case

[5] The Plaintiff's claim is founded on an alleged series of events commencing in the mid-1980s. She averred that in or around 1985, the former owners of the Property, namely Tan Chong Beng and Yeo Chooi Bow, obtained a personal loan from her late husband, one Subramanian a/l Manicam. Upon their inability to repay the said loan, they are said to have executed a Deed of Gift dated 13 February 1987, transferring all rights, interests, and benefits in the Property to the plaintiff.

[6] The Deed of Gift, according to the plaintiff, expressly revoked all prior testamentary instruments, including earlier trust deeds and appointments of trustees, specifically naming Palaniappan @ Chidambaram s/o Subramaniam and Palaniveloo s/o Sangalimuthu as former trustees, and declared that the Deed of Gift was the final instrument transferring ownership.

[7] The Plaintiff further averred that she has, since the execution of the Deed, considered herself the rightful owner and had taken steps to dispose of the Property. It was only subsequently that she became aware of the Private Caveat lodged by the defendant.

[8] The Plaintiff contended that the defendant, who is said to be the sibling of the aforementioned Palaniveloo, is a stranger to the Property, and has no legal interest justifying the registration of a caveat.

[9] In legal support, the plaintiff relies on the following propositions.

[10] First, that she has locus standi to institute this action pursuant to s 327(1) of the National Land Code.

[11] Second that the defendant has no caveatable interest in law, within the meaning as considered in Luggage Distributors (M) Sdn Bhd v. Tan Hor Teng @ Tan TIEN CHI & Anor; [1995] 1 MLRA 496; [1995] 1 MLJ 719; [1995] 2 CLJ 713; [1995] 3 CLJ 520; [1995] 2 AMR 969).

[12] Third, that an aggrieved party, such as herself, is entitled to invoke s 327 to seek cancellation of a caveat, as recognised in Yeap Joo Kim v. Ong Choo Ean; [2000] 1 MLJ 586; [2000] 1 CLJ 333 and North Plaza Sdn Bhd V. United Securities Sdn Bhd; [2010] 1 MLJ 631; [2010] 1 CLJ 470.

The Defendant's Case

[13] The Defendant's position rests squarely on her reliance on a Trust Deed predating the Deed of Gift. She averred that the Pr