JUDGMENT

Suffian LP:

This appeal raises the question whether a person who is interested only in a specific portion of land may enter a caveat against the land. The caveator (appellant before us) says yes, the caveatees (respondents) say no, the learned Judge, agreeing with the caveatees decided no, and the caveator has appealed to us.

The facts are as follows. The late Mr. Ratnavale, no stranger to these Courts, owned Merah Estate in Kulim, Kedah, which he planned to subdivide and sell to various people. The caveator and two others rendered him some service in connection with the project. In consideration of the caveator's service Mr. Ratnavale agreed to give him a specific portion of the estate with the tindal's house on it "now occupied by [the caveator]" and the caveator has been in possession of that portion ever since.

The agreement was expressed as a written undertaking dated 22 December 1966, in the following words:

In the event of the satisfactory sale and completion of Merah Estate in Kulim, I [Ratnavale] hereby undertake to pay jointly

(1)N Vangedaselam of Kulim [the caveator]

(2)S Suppiah Chettiar of Bukit Mertajam

(3)K Nallamani Nadar of Kulim

for their services in the following manner:

(a) Brokerage of 1% for their negotiating sale of the Sungei Dingi Div.

(b)Brokerage of 2% for their effecting sale of the town lots

(c)15% on the nett profits derived from the sale of the said estate.

The land comprising the tindal's house now occupied by N Vangedaselam [caveator] will be given free to him.

Further it is understood by all concerned that if it were decided to retain the estate as a unit and not to dispose of it, a sum of $15,000 (Dollars fifteen thousand only) will be paid to them jointly.

Sgd [Ratnavale]

22 December 1966.

There must have been some dispute between Ratnavale and the caveator, for on 29 September 1971, the caveator filed a suit in the Alor Star High Court (Suit No. 263 of 1971) against Ratnavale. There the caveator asks among other things for an order of specific performance, so that the portion alleged to have been promised by Ratnavale to him may be transferred to him. The case has not yet come to trial.

On 13 October 1971, the caveator entered a caveat against the land.

Ratnavale died on 9 April 1973, but during his lifetime he had taken no action to remove the caveat. However after his death his two brothers, the representatives of his estate, applied to the Court to have the caveat removed, and the Court ordered the caveat removed, and it is against that order that the caveator has appealed.

The learned Judge ordered the caveat removed on the ground that Merah Estate against which the caveat was entered was over 42 relongs in area, whereas the caveator claims a registrable interest only in a specific portion measuring about 18,000 square feet. The Judge followed three decisions of the High Court, all of which decided that if you are interested only in a portion of land you cannot caveat the whole land. They are Tee Chin Yong v. Ernest Jeff ;

Woo Yok Wan v. Loo Pek Chee ; and Pok Kew Chai V. Yeoh Thian Seng & Anor. . The first case was a decision on the FMS Land Code, and the other two on the corresponding provisions in the National Land Code.

Here the land is in Kedah and at all relevant times the National Land Code applies.

In Tee Chin Yong the caveatee had two pieces of land. According to the caveator, the caveatee had agreed to sell to him a portion of each piece, so he sued the caveatee, for specific performance. Previously the caveator had lodged a caveat against each land. He was subsequently served with a notice requiring him to withdraw the caveats and he applied for an order that the caveats be extended until the disposal of his suit.

The caveatee opposed the application on the ground that agreements by the caveatee to sell the land did not give the caveator a caveatable interest, but Ismail Khan J, as he then was, ordered the caveats removed not on that ground, b