Zulkefli Makinudin J:

This is an application by the applicant under s. 327 of the National Land Code ("the NLC") to set aside a caveat which has been lodged by the second respondent against the property of the first respondent and for a restraining order against the first respondent from dealing with the property. The said property is the land lot held under H.S.(D) 21590, PT 5381 Mukim Rawang, Daerah Gombak, Selangor ("the property").

Facts Of The Case

The relevant facts of the case are as follows:

(1) The applicant is the attorney of the first respondent vide a power of attorney ("PA") which was allegedly executed by the first respondent dated 18 July 1997. The genuineness of the contents of the PA is disputed by the first respondent. The first respondent alleged that she gave a PA to the applicant strictly for the purpose of assisting her in attending to the renting of the property to intending tenants.

(2) The first respondent had sold the property to the second respondent for the sum of RM130,000 on 10 December 1998. Upon making part payment in the sum of RM60,000, the second respondent lodged a private caveat against the property with the first respondent's consent.

(3) The applicant without the knowledge or consent of the first respondent utilised the PA to sell off the property on 23 March 1999 to a party by the name of Chew Huey Fen through M/s Khong & Jaafar (Real Estate) Sdn Bhd (exh. "VS10"). The first respondent first came to know about the said disposal to Chew Huey Fen through this originating summons. Upon receipt of the originating summons, the first respondent took action to revoke the PA on 10 May 1999.

(4) The applicant also alleged that the first respondent had at the outset purchased the property on its behalf.

Decision Of The Court

Having studied the respective affidavits filed on behalf of the applicant and the respondents and having studied the submissions made by learned counsels for the applicant and the respondents I hereby dismissed with costs the application of the applicant. The learned counsel for the respondents at the outset raised a preliminary objection on a number of issues relating to the applicant's application. However I do not find it necessary to deal with the said preliminary objection as I find that the issues raised can be effectively dealt with by the counsel for the respondents in the main argument opposing the application of the applicant. Deciding strictly on the basis of the merits of the application of the applicant the following are my grounds in dismissing the said application.

Firstly, it is my finding that the applicant company has no capacity or locus standi to commence this action for the removal of the second respondent's caveat as it is not an "aggrieved party". It is a well established principle that in order to have locus standi, a party seeking to lift a caveat lodged against a property has to be an "aggrieved party" within the meaning of s. 327 of the NLC. In the case of Wu Shu Chen v. Raja Zainal Abidin Raja Hussin [1997] 3 CLJ 854; [1997] 2 MLJ 487 the Court of Appeal defines the word "aggrieved" as follows:

To be aggrieved means one is dissatisfied with or adversely affected by a wrongful act of someone. An aggrieved person is therefore a person whose legal right or interest is adversely affected by the wrongful act or conduct of another person or body.

The applicant in this case does not fall within the meaning of "aggrieved" as defined above. The capacity in which the applicant is taking this action is as the attorney and agent of the first respondent. This action is therefore a representative action. It means that the applicant is representing the first respondent (ie, suing for and on behalf of the first respondent) in bringing this action before the court. However this capacity of the applicant to commence this action is questionable.

The applicant has never been instructed by the first respondent to commence any representative action at any time w