The court held that a caveat must specifically limit its protection to the claim at issue; failing which, it can be removed.

Ahmad Fairuz JCA:

The appellant is the purchaser of a piece of land held under GM 7965, Lot 2400, Mukim Kuala Kuantan (hereinafter referred to as "the land"). The vendors namely, Mohamed Naim bin Haji Ahmad, Che Mah bte A. Rahaman and Mohd. Nasir bin Haji Ahmad are the registered owners of the land. Both the appellant and the vendors signed a sale and purchase agreement ("the SPA") on 5 November 1996. The agreed price of the sale was RM392,222.95. A sum of RM45,607.32 was paid by the appellant to the vendors as deposit. In compliance with the requirement of the SPA, the balance sum of RM346,615.63 was paid by the appellant to its solicitors on 4 February 1997. The appellant, however, has been unable to register the land in its name due to the presence of a private caveat lodged by the respondent on 21 January 1997. Consequently, by an originating summons dated 17 February 1997, the appellant applied for the removal of the caveat. On 28 November 1997, the learned judge dismissed the appellant's application. Hence this present appeal.

We heard this appeal on 29 April 1999 and we allowed it with costs. At the same time we ordered the deposit to be refunded to the appellant. We now give our reasons.

The respondent claims title to or a registrable interest in a portion measuring 100 feet by 40 feet of the land. This portion was purchased by the respondent from one Omar bin Mohamad Aris (deceased) who was then the registered proprietor of the land. The respondent had paid the full purchase price of RM8,000 to the deceased. The original issue document of title of the land was handed over to the respondent who, immediately after the execution of the sale and purchase agreement dated 22 January 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the 1973 SPA) pertaining to the sale of the portion (hereinafter referred to as "the said portion"), entered into possession of the said portion and had exercised the right of ownership to the said portion by renting the same out to various persons. The respondent had also paid all relevant quit rents and assessments due on the said land. The respondent has, however, not as yet registered his interest in the said portion of the land. Learned counsel for the respondent highlighted the fact that the 1973 SPA was prepared by the then Mr. V. Balendran, a solicitor practising with the firm of Messrs. Maxwell Kenion Cowdy & Jones Kuantan. The respondent was unable to produce a copy of the 1973 SPA as he was never handed a copy by the said solicitors despite his numerous requests for the copy. A copy of a letter dated 20 January 1978 from Messrs. Balendran & Chong (formerly known as Messrs Maxwell Kenion Cowdy & Jones) was produced as evidence of the existence of the 1973 SPA (see pp. 185 and 186 of the Appeal Record).

Before us, learned counsel for the appellant contended that the respondent's caveat is procedurally bad in that it fails to expressly limit its protection only to his claim of the said portion. Consequently, counsel submitted that the caveat must, on that ground alone, be cancelled. The appellant further argued that the evidence produced by the respondent are inherently weak and unreliable to support his claim of ownership to the said portion. No sale and purchase agreement had been produced. Only quit rents and assessment receipts were tendered as exhibits. The first assertion of ownership by the respondent was the lodging of the caveat some 24 years after the purchase transaction in 1973. These evidence, according to the appellant, show that there are no serious issues to be tried. As such, the caveat ought to be removed. It was also contended by the appellant that the claim of the respondent can be quantified in damages. Thus, the balance of convenience and justice would favour the removal of the caveat.

It is clear that, on the authority of Eng Mee Yong & Ors. v. V. Letchumanan [1979] 2 MLJ 212 PC the app