JUDGMENT

Indra Nehru Savandiah J:

Introduction

[1] This is an originating summons application filed for the removal of a caveat with presentation no 001B49373 lodged by the 1st Respondent in respect of a property known as HSD166906, PT78133, Bandar Baru Bangi, Daerah Ulu Langat, Negeri Selangor and for the recovery of damages as against the 1st Respondent.

[2] The originating summons was dismissed with RM7,000.00 costs.

[3] Therefore, the appellant commenced the appeal process.

Brief Facts

[4] CM Auto Holdings Sdn Bhd (hereinafter referred to as the Applicant) and Pengerusi Persatuan Pemilik Hub Bangi (hereinafter referred to as the 1st Respondent) entered into a sale and purchase agreement dated 6 February 2013 for the purchase of property from Suntrack Development Sdn Bhd. Additionally, the Applicant also entered into a Deed of Mutual Covenant on the same date with Suntrack Development Sdn Bhd.

[5] The 1st respondent was established on 6 April 2014. It serves as the management body under the Deed of Mutual Covenant, performing the developer's duties, responsibilities, and obligations, and ensuring that owners and purchasers of the factory units comply with the terms and conditions set forth in the Deed of Mutual Covenant. (refer to Enc 5, TKK-3)

[6] The Applicant is a property owner and a member of the 1st Respondent.

[7] On 11 July 2019, during the 3rd Annual General Meeting, it was unanimously agreed by the members present to permit the 1st Respondent to register private caveat(s) in accordance with the terms and conditions of the Deed of Mutual Covenant. (refer to Enc, exhibit TKK-5). A copy of the meeting minutes was served to each member. (refer to Enc, TKK-6)

[8] Subsequently, a letter dated 26 August 2019 was issued by the developer to all property owners, including the Applicant, stating that the responsibilities, obligations, liabilities, and functions of the developer have been assigned and vested in the 1st Respondent in accordance with the Deed of Mutual Covenant. (See Enc 5, Exhibit TKK-7). Private caveats were lodged accordingly.

[9] The Applicant, through a letter dated 13 August 2024, formally requested the 1st Respondent to withdraw the caveat lodged concerning their property to enable a sale and purchase transaction between the applicant and Aeglos Refrigeration (M) Sdn Bhd.

[10] The Applicant contends that the 1st Respondent refused, failed, and/or neglected to withdraw the caveat. Furthermore, the Applicant asserts that the 1st Respondent imposed conditions requiring the proposed purchaser to make an initial payment equivalent to one year's maintenance fees and to sign a new Deed of Mutual Covenant, after which the 1st Respondent would withdraw the caveat.

[11] After numerous correspondences, finally, on 27 September 2024, the Applicant stated that the 1st Respondent informed the applicant that the private caveat would be removed without any terms or conditions.

[12] It is an undisputed fact that the private caveat was removed on 23 October 2024.

Issues To Be Tried

[13] Whether there was an unlawful entry of caveat?

[14] Whether the Applicant possesses the right to claim damages from the 1st Respondent owing to the registration of the private caveat under s 329 of the National Land Code.

Decision Of This Court

[15] Upon perusal of the cause papers, the prayer for the removal of the caveat is redundant as it has been removed on 23 October 2024 by the 1st Respondent. This originating summons was filed on 28 October 2024.

[16] Nevertheless, in the interest of completeness, I shall address the first issue.

[17] The Applicant asserts that they are entitled to a declaration of compensation and/or damages from the 1st Respondent for the wrongful entry of a private caveat. Reference was made to s 329 of the National Land Code. The Applicant referred to a High Court case of Quill Construction Sdn Bhd v. Tan Hor Teng & Anor; [2003] 6 MLJ 279; [2003] 7 CLJ 24; [2006] 4 AMR 451.

[18] The Applicant asserts that they were unaware of the