Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query!
Scanned Judgements…!
Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query!
Scanned Judgements…!
Proprietor (as original proprietor/vendor) has clear statutory duty under STA ss.8, 8A, 20 to apply for strata subdivision expeditiously post-CCC or plan issuance, reinforced by contractual clauses in S&P/tripartite agreements binding parties. Liable for delays in application (not issuance, which is governmental), subject to specific performance or charges; tripartite party status heightens enforceability via contract. ["AHMAD HUSAIRI ALI & ORS vs SUDITASIA (M) SDN BHD - High Court"] ["TOH CHIUN ER & ORS vs EKOVEST CAPITAL SDN BHD - High Court"] [](https://supremetoday.ai/doc/judgement/MY_MLRH_1992_2_MLRH_513) ["SYED AZMAN SYED MOHAMED vs LIAN SENG (KL) CONSTRUCTION CO.SDN.BHD."] [](https://supremetoday.ai/doc/judgement/MY_MLRH_1998_2_MLRH_538)
In Malaysia's bustling property market, strata-titled properties like condominiums and apartments are commonplace. However, delays in issuing strata titles can lead to disputes, especially when purchasers question the land proprietor's role. A common query arises: Is the Land Proprietor liable for late strata title issuance, especially since they are party to the tripartite agreement? And does the Proprietor have legal obligations to apply for strata titles?
This blog post delves into the legal framework under the Strata Titles Act 1985 (STA) and National Land Code (NLC), examining proprietor responsibilities. While statutory duties focus on post-issuance obligations, contractual agreements like tripartite deals (between developer, purchaser, and financier) may impose additional timelines. Note: This is general information based on key provisions and cases; consult a legal professional for specific advice. HONG LEONG BANK BHD vs GOH SIN KHAI - 2005 MarsdenLR 2421
The STA is seamlessly integrated into the NLC, ensuring strata parcels are treated similarly to standard land titles unless inconsistent. Section 5(1) and (2) of the STA explicitly incorporates the Act into the NLC, applying Code provisions to strata parcels where compatible. This extends typical land proprietor duties to strata contexts. HONG LEONG BANK BHD vs GOH SIN KHAI - 2005 MarsdenLR 2421TARGET TERM SDN BHD vs WALDORF AND WINDSOR MANAGEMENT CORPORATION & ANOTHER APPEAL
Further, Section 34(1)(a) of the STA grants proprietors of strata parcels the same powers as under the NLC for their land, implying reciprocal obligations. Critically, Section 16(6) of the STA states: The provisions of ss. 89 to 91 of the National Land Code shall apply to documents of strata title as they apply to documents of final title. This links strata title processes directly to NLC protocols for issuance and delivery. HONG LEONG BANK BHD vs GOH SIN KHAI - 2005 MarsdenLR 2421OOI CHIN NEE vs CITIBANK BHD
These provisions establish procedural equivalence, but do they make the land proprietor (often the developer) liable for application delays?
The NLC outlines clear proprietor obligations via Sections 89-91, applied to strata titles:
Section 89 (Conclusive Evidence): A registered strata title document is conclusive proof of vesting in the proprietor and any conditions or restrictions. Proprietors must comply post-issuance, but this doesn't mandate initial application duties. HONG LEONG BANK BHD vs GOH SIN KHAI - 2005 MarsdenLR 2421
Section 90 (Delivery Notice and Revenue Payment): Upon readiness, the proprietor must be served a notice to take delivery of the title and pay any outstanding land revenue. Key duties include:
Non-compliance can delay possession, mirroring final title processes. This is the primary statutory duty tied to issuance. HONG LEONG BANK BHD vs GOH SIN KHAI - 2005 MarsdenLR 2421
Notably, statutes do not explicitly require the land proprietor to initiate the strata title application. Duties emphasize the endpoint: collection and payment. However, developers as initial proprietors often handle applications practically. HONG LEONG BANK BHD vs GOH SIN KHAI - 2005 MarsdenLR 2421
Statutorily, proprietors aren't directly liable for delays in issuance under STA/NLC—the focus is on their response post-readiness. Delays typically stem from developer submissions to land authorities, not proprietor inaction after notice. HONG LEONG BANK BHD vs GOH SIN KHAI - 2005 MarsdenLR 2421
Yet, tripartite agreements (developer-purchaser-bank) often bind developers (as proprietors) to timelines for title issuance, say 6-12 months post-completion. Breach may trigger purchaser remedies like damages, but this is contractual, not statutory liability under STA. Courts have upheld purchaser liabilities even pre-title (e.g., maintenance charges), interpreting 'proprietor' broadly to include occupants. In one case: Purchasers occupying property are liable for maintenance charges despite not being registered proprietors under relevant legislation. PERBADANAN PENGURUSAN MEGAN AVENUE 1 vs HARCHARAN S SIDHU & ANOR
Related rulings affirm STA's broad application:- Operation of carpark businesses doesn't constitute 'dealing' under STA, validating sales. TARGET TERM SDN BHD vs WALDORF AND WINDSOR MANAGEMENT CORPORATION & ANOTHER APPEAL- STA and Strata Management Act 2013 (SMA) impose charges on purchasers pre-registration. PERBADANAN PENGURUSAN MEGAN AVENUE 1 vs HARCHARAN S SIDHU & ANOR
Proprietors (developers) may face indirect liability if delays arise from non-compliance with prerequisites like revenue clearance.
Beyond issuance:1. Ongoing Compliance: Adhere to title conditions (Section 89). HONG LEONG BANK BHD vs GOH SIN KHAI - 2005 MarsdenLR 24212. Revenue Payments: Critical under Section 90 to avoid jeopardizing delivery. HONG LEONG BANK BHD vs GOH SIN KHAI - 2005 MarsdenLR 24213. Powers and Accountability: Section 34(1)(a) STA mirrors NLC powers, implying duties like standard land management. HONG LEONG BANK BHD vs GOH SIN KHAI - 2005 MarsdenLR 2421
Proprietary concerns (sole proprietorships) lack separate legal entity status, so proprietors are personally liable—relevant if the land proprietor operates as such. A proprietary concern does not have a separate legal entity apart from its proprietor since the proprietary concern and the proprietor are one and the same person. M. Hemalatha VS D. Kannan - 2016 Supreme(Mad) 543Lakshmi Metal Works Proprietor VS State, rep. by. The Inspector of Police City Crime Branch, Coimbatore - 2016 Supreme(Mad) 2844
In strata disputes, courts prioritize statutory harmony. For instance, back charges for maintenance can be claimed against non-registered purchasers, signaling proprietors' broad exposure. TARGET TERM SDN BHD vs WALDORF AND WINDSOR MANAGEMENT CORPORATION & ANOTHER APPEALPERBADANAN PENGURUSAN MEGAN AVENUE 1 vs HARCHARAN S SIDHU & ANOR
Delays often exceed statutory bounds due to administrative backlogs, but proprietor non-response to Section 90 notices could contribute.
Land proprietors have defined duties under STA/NLC—primarily revenue payment and title collection (Section 90)—but no explicit statutory obligation to apply for strata titles. Liability for late issuance typically arises contractually via tripartite agreements, not directly from statutes. Integration of STA into NLC ensures equivalence, with evidentiary protections (Section 89) and exemptions (Section 91). HONG LEONG BANK BHD vs GOH SIN KHAI - 2005 MarsdenLR 2421
Key Takeaways:- Respond promptly to title delivery notices.- Clear outstanding revenues to secure indefeasible title.- Review tripartite terms for developer timelines.- Purchasers may still bear charges pre-title. PERBADANAN PENGURUSAN MEGAN AVENUE 1 vs HARCHARAN S SIDHU & ANOR
This analysis draws from core provisions; contextual factors like specific agreements may vary outcomes. Always seek tailored legal counsel. Stay informed on property laws to navigate Malaysia's strata landscape confidently.
#StrataTitle #MalaysiaLandLaw #PropertyLiability
(3) The original proprietor of any alienated land on which the building or land had been issued with the certificate of proposed strata plan under subsection 8A(8), shall apply for subdivision in accordance with subsection 9(1) within a period of one month from the date of issuance ... Application for certificate of proposed strata plan 8A. (1) For the purpose of subsection 9(1), the original proprietor of any alienated land on wh....
" Clause 11(1) "The Vendor shall, at its own cost and expense and as expeditiously as possible, apply for subdivision of the said Building or Land intended for subdivision into parcels, as the case may be, so as to obtain the issue of a separate strata title to the said Parcel under the Strata ... : (a) To apply for subdivision of building or land within three (3) months of the procurement of the Certificate of Completion and Compliance (CCC) and thereafter procure se....
title for the plaintiff and upon issuance of the said strata title, to transfer the same to the plaintiff. ... The defence of the defendants as set out in their statement of defence filed on 17 January 1990 may be summarised as follows: (e) in the alternative the plaintiff has no title to sue as he has assigned all its interests to a third party.
and the legal interest and title of the land in question was vested in the defendants under the NLC; (b) the conveyance referred to in cl 15 of the S & P agreement was not a strata title but merely an interest in the undivided shares of the said land; Court to order them to specifically perform their obligation to apply for a subdivision of the said building and to obtain the strata title of the third floor purc....
title for the plaintiff and upon issuance of the said strata title, to transfer the same to the plaintiff. ... The defence of the defendants as set out in their statement of defence filed on 17 January 1990 may be summarised as follows: (a) the S & P agreement was governed by the NLC and not the Strata Titles Act 1985 and the legal interest and title of the land in question was vested in the ... It is therefore suggested that it i....
Strata Titles Act 1985 . Is Target Term Liable For The Back Charges? ... (2) The National Land Code and the rules made thereunder, in so far as they are not inconsistent with the provisions of this Act or the rules made thereunder, or are capable of applying to parcels, shall apply in all respects to parcels held under the strata titles. ... The words of the since-deleted s 41A(1) reads as follows: (1) Where the first annual general meeting of a management corporation has not yet been....
Strata Management Act 2013 (" SMA 2013") read and construed together with the Strata Title Act 1985 (" STA 1985") applies to this case.
Since s. 16(6) stipulates that the provisions of ss. 89 to 91 of the National Land Code shall apply to documents of strata title as they would apply to documents of final title, it is necessary to look at these sections. ... It reads as follows: 16(6) The provisions of ss. 89to 91 of the National Land Codeshall apply to documents of strata title as they apply to documents of fi....
It reads as follows: 16(6) The provisions of ss. 89 to 91 of the National Land Code shall apply to documents of strata title as they apply to documents of final title. ... Since s. 16(6) stipulates that the provisions of ss. 89 to 91 of the National Land Code shall apply to documents of strata title as they would apply to documents of final title, it is necess....
It reads as follows: 16(6) The provisions of ss. 89to 91 of the National Land Codeshall apply to documents of strata title as they apply to documents of final title. ... Since s. 16(6) stipulates that the provisions of ss. 89 to 91 of the National Land Code shall apply to documents of strata title as they would apply to documents of final title, it is necessar....
In the instant case, the proprietrix and she authorized her husband to M/s.Sri Balaji Dhall Mill. 6. A proprietary concern does not have a separate legal entity apart from its proprietor since the proprietary concern and the proprietor are one and the same person. Thus, proprietary concern is not an independent, legal and juristic entity having legal recognition in the eye of law and it can neither initiate proceedings nor proceedings be initiated against it.
In the instant case, A1 has borrowed money and a complaint has been preferred against A1 for failing to repay the money. 8. In respect of A3 is concerned, A3 is a proprietary concern. A proprietary concern does not have a separate legal entity apart from its proprietor since the proprietary concern and the proprietor are one and the same person. Thus, proprietary concern is not an independent, legal and juristic entity having legal recognition in the eye of law and it can neither initiate proceedings nor proceedings be initiated against it.
The said building is presently occupied by about 30 Nos. of families. 2. No technical persons have been engaged before and during construction period of this building (as told by Pu Darchhinga). The building is eleven (11) storeyed high and constructed on a very steep natural rock formation above Temple to Vaivakawn road. Since, the building is constructed in conformed to the natural rock strata, the natural rock bed / strata have been utilized as walling at the uphill side for the whole building up to eighth (8th) floor level.
The class of establishment covered by Section 33 (B) are those conducted by responsible persons/management who are conscious of their social commitments and obligations. There are only six such star hotels, holding licence and covered by the exemption provided under Section 33 (B) of the amended provisions. The persons visiting these hotels or establishments stand on different footing and cannot be compared with people who attend the establishments which are popularly known as dance bar. They belong to different strata of society and are class by themselves.
BY ITS PROPRIETOR S.K.KRISHNAMOORTHY AND ANOTHER – Vs. - S. AHMED MEERAN (2002 (1) MWN (CRL) DCC (MAD.) 120) wherein it has been held that.. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that a proprietary concern is neither a firm nor a company so as to come within the ambit of Section 141 of Negotiable Instruments Act. He also relied on the decision reported in S.K. REAL ESTATES REP. A proprietary concern does not have a separate legal entity apart from its proprietor since the proprietary concern and the proprietor are one and the same person.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
