Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query!
Scanned Judgements…!
Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query!
Scanned Judgements…!
Possession in Malaysian law generally refers to the physical control or occupancy of property, which can be established through various forms such as actual physical control, legal possession, or de facto control ["DHOOP SINGH vs AJIT SINGH ETC. - Punjab and Haryana"].
Possession can be evidenced by possession notices, possession certificates, or actual physical presence on the property, as seen in cases where possession notices are issued or possession certificates are provided ["ABDUL RAZAK vs STATE OF KERALA - Kerala"], ["P1(A)"]).
The concept of possession is central in legal disputes involving property rights, eviction, and adverse possession claims. Courts consider whether a party is in actual, lawful, or de facto possession when determining rights or remedies ["DHOOP SINGH vs AJIT SINGH ETC. - Punjab and Haryana"], ["Chilamakurti Naganna VS Kavipurapu Rama Row - Madras"].
In certain cases, possession is not necessarily equivalent to ownership but is a factual state that may be protected or challenged through legal proceedings, such as applications for recovery of possession or eviction ["DHOOP SINGH vs AJIT SINGH ETC. - Punjab and Haryana"], ["DHOOP SINGH vs AJIT SINGH ETC. - Punjab and Haryana"].
The law recognizes different types of possession, including actual possession, constructive possession, and symbolic possession (e.g., possession through documents or notices), each relevant in different legal contexts ["MAHIDI MOHAMMAD LWN. AKER SOLUTIONS MALAYSIA SDN BHD - Industrial Court"], ["VINOOB P V vs KERALA STATE CO-OPERATIVE BANK - Kerala"].
The burden of proof to establish possession lies with the party claiming it, and courts assess evidence such as physical control, documents, or actions indicating possession ["MAHANT BACHAN DASS VS VED PRAKASH GUPTA - Delhi"], ["DHOOP SINGH vs AJIT SINGH ETC. - Punjab and Haryana"].
Analysis and Conclusion:In Malaysian law, possession means the physical or de facto control over property, which can be evidenced through documents, notices, or actual occupancy. It is a key factor in property disputes, eviction proceedings, and adverse possession claims, where courts evaluate the nature, duration, and evidence of possession to determine legal rights ["DHOOP SINGH vs AJIT SINGH ETC. - Punjab and Haryana"]. Possession can be lawful or unlawful, and its proof is essential in asserting or defending property rights.
In the realm of Malaysian law, the term possession often arises in property disputes, unlawful occupation cases, and criminal matters like drug offences. But what does possession actually mean? If you've ever wondered what does possession mean in Malaysian law, this guide breaks it down with insights from statutes, landmark cases, and judicial interpretations. Whether you're a property owner facing squatters or navigating criminal charges, understanding possession is crucial—though this is general information, not specific legal advice. Consult a qualified lawyer for your situation.
Possession in Malaysian jurisprudence is broadly defined as having physical control or custody over an object or property, irrespective of ownership. It's not the same as ownership; you can possess something without owning it. The case Low Nghee Lim v. Reg1956 22 MLJ 28 clarifies: the primary meaning of possession is to have physical control, irrespective of beneficial ownership PENDAKWA RAYA LWN. GHASEM GHAREZADEHSHARBIANI HASSAN - 2013 MarsdenLR 2421.
Key characteristics include:- Physical or constructive control: You don't need to hold it in your hand; control suffices.- Joint or non-exclusive: Multiple parties can possess the same item PP vs YAO MAO GAO - 2021 MarsdenLR 1285.- Temporary nature: Possession can be short-term without implying ownership.
This distinction is vital in eviction proceedings, where registered owners reclaim property from unlawful possessors LEE HOCK TEONG & YANG LAIN LWN. TAN SIEW LIAN & SATU LAGI (KAND 1) - 2016 MarsdenLR 1058.
Malaysian law, particularly under the Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 (DDA), differentiates these terms:- Possession: Physical or constructive control.- Custody: Care or safekeeping.- Control: Power to influence or determine use.
These are not interchangeable PP vs YAO MAO GAO - 2021 MarsdenLR 1285. For instance, in drug cases, mere custody without knowledge doesn't equate to possession. This aligns with broader principles where possession implies capability of control, not just physical holding—echoing interpretations like possession which the property is capable of in property transfers DHOOMI MAL RAM CHAND VS COLLECTOR OF STAMPS - 1971 Supreme(Del) 340.
Knowledge is a cornerstone. In Law Sie Hoe v. PP2014 2 AMR 657, possession requires:- Knowledge of the item.- Power to dispose of it.- Consciousness of possession PP vs MOHD HISHAMMUDIN MOHD RAZAK & ANOR - 2015 MarsdenLR 589.
Lack of knowledge can be a defense, especially in DDA offences. The Federal Court in PP v. Denish Madhavan2009 2 MLJ 194 emphasized: knowledge, control, and consciousness are essential characteristics of possession PP vs MOHD HISHAMMUDIN MOHD RAZAK & ANOR - 2015 MarsdenLR 589. Without these, prosecution may fail.
Courts demand evidence of:- Physical control.- Awareness.- Ability to control.
Under DDA sections 37(d) and 37(da), presumptions of possession and mens rea (guilty mind) apply but can be rebutted PHRUEKSA TAEMCHIM (THAILAND) vs PP - 2013 MarsdenLR 700. Legal scholar T Vijayandran notes the evolving nature of these offences, stressing rebuttable evidence PHRUEKSA TAEMCHIM (THAILAND) vs PP - 2013 MarsdenLR 700.
In property contexts, registered ownership trumps unlawful possession. One case saw plaintiffs evict occupants upon proving title, affirming: possession without ownership is insufficient to defeat the rights of the registered owner LEE HOCK TEONG & YANG LAIN LWN. TAN SIEW LIAN & SATU LAGI (KAND 1) - 2016 MarsdenLR 1058.
These cases illustrate possession's dual role: civil (recovery) and criminal (liability).
Malaysian trends mirror global views but adapt locally. For comparison, Indian cases highlight possession's evidentiary weight—e.g., absence of possession as proof against inheritance acceptance Maharaja Bahadur Sir Prodyot Coomar Tagore, Kt. VS Hamidar Rahaman Mia - 1937 Supreme(Cal) 115. In seizures, unlawful taking voids proceedings, akin to requiring valid authority in Malaysia MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI VS J. B. BOTTLING COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED - 1978 Supreme(Del) 74.
In patents or arbitration, possession ties to control over rights, but Malaysian focus remains on tangible property and substances FUKUYAMA AUTOMATION SDN BHD vs XIN XIN ENGINEERING SDN BHD & ANORGovernment of India VS Vedanta Limited (Formerly Cairn India Ltd. ) - 2020 6 Supreme 193. Cutting materials for utility may imply 'use' or 'consumption,' paralleling transformative possession MAFATLAL INDUSTRIES LIMITED VS NADIAD NAGAR PALIKA - 1991 Supreme(Guj) 121.
Courts consistently demand proof beyond doubt, balancing rights.
Malaysian law views possession as:- Primarily physical control, joint/non-exclusive PP vs YAO MAO GAO - 2021 MarsdenLR 1285.- Requiring knowledge and disposal powerPP vs MOHD HISHAMMUDIN MOHD RAZAK & ANOR - 2015 MarsdenLR 589.- Distinct from ownership; enforceable via courts LEE HOCK TEONG & YANG LAIN LWN. TAN SIEW LIAN & SATU LAGI (KAND 1) - 2016 MarsdenLR 1058.- In drugs, prosecution-proven with rebuttable presumptionsPHRUEKSA TAEMCHIM (THAILAND) vs PP - 2013 MarsdenLR 700.
Evidence must show awareness, control, and consciousness. As jurisprudence evolves, stay informed—possession underpins many disputes.
Disclaimer: This article provides general insights based on cited cases and is not legal advice. Laws change; seek professional counsel.
Sources:- LEE HOCK TEONG & YANG LAIN LWN. TAN SIEW LIAN & SATU LAGI (KAND 1) - 2016 MarsdenLR 1058- PP vs YAO MAO GAO - 2021 MarsdenLR 1285- PENDAKWA RAYA LWN. GHASEM GHAREZADEHSHARBIANI HASSAN - 2013 MarsdenLR 2421- PP vs MOHD HISHAMMUDIN MOHD RAZAK & ANOR - 2015 MarsdenLR 589- PHRUEKSA TAEMCHIM (THAILAND) vs PP - 2013 MarsdenLR 700- Maharaja Bahadur Sir Prodyot Coomar Tagore, Kt. VS Hamidar Rahaman Mia - 1937 Supreme(Cal) 115- MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI VS J. B. BOTTLING COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED - 1978 Supreme(Del) 74- DHOOMI MAL RAM CHAND VS COLLECTOR OF STAMPS - 1971 Supreme(Del) 340- MAFATLAL INDUSTRIES LIMITED VS NADIAD NAGAR PALIKA - 1991 Supreme(Guj) 121
(Approximately 950 words)
#MalaysianLaw, #PossessionLaw, #LegalGuideMY
Perkara 2.2 polisi berkenaan adalah seperti berikut: The use, possesion, concealment, transportation, purchase, promotion or sale of Prohibited Substance on company premises or Third party premises is strictly forbidden. ... Pihak syarikat pula dalam hujahnya bergantung kepada keputusan dalam kes Malaysian Airline System Bhd. v. Samson Anuar Haron ; [2003] 3 ILR 1407 (Award No. 880 of 2003) dan Kamisan Abu Bakar v.
P2(c) A TRUE COPY OF THE POSSESION NOTICE DATED 26/08/2024 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT BANK TO THE 3RD PETITIONER & TRANSLATED NOTICE Exhibit P2(d) A TRUE COPY OF THE POSSESION NOTICE DATED 26/08/2024 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT BANK TO THE 1ST PETITIONER & TRANSLATED NOTICE Exhibit P2(b) A TRUE COPY OF THE POSSESION NOTICE DATED 26/08/2024 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT BANK TO THE 2ND PETITIONER & TRANSLATED NOTICE Exhibit ... BANK TO THE 4TH PETITIONER & TRANSLATED NOTICE Exhibit P2(e) A TRUE COPY OF THE POSSESION NOTICE DATED 26....
In such a factual background, the remedy available to the petitioner is by means of an application under Rule 109-A of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Rules. ... Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of MANDAMUS commanding and directing upon the respondent authorities to pass appropriate orders regarding demarcation as well as possesion of Chak/
In support of this proposition reliance was placed on 1939 Allahabad page 257 wherein it is laid down "Discontinuance in article 142 of the Limitation Act means that a person in possession goes out and is followed into possession by another person because unless he is so followed, he will in law be deemed ... In the present case the suit has been brought on the basis of title and it was not necessary for the plaintiff to show that he was in possesion within 12 years prior to the institution of the suit. ... Where the plaintiff sues for po....
The burden of adverse possesion cannot be accepted by any court except on consideration of evidence led before it and it is obligatory for the party taking up a plea of adverse possesion to prove and establish their right to the same. ... For that reason, even the second point of law is answered in favour of the appellant. ... A reference in this connection may be made to AIR 1988 Delhi 349, AIR 1976 Calcutta 361, AIR 1988 Patna 141 and 1985 (27) Delhi Law Times 444. ... To my mind the following substantial questions of ....
Bansal, Additional District Judge, Jind partly accepted the appeal holding that Dhoop Singh was in possesion of suit land but not as a tenant and the plaintiffs were entitled to possession of the suit land in due process of law. ... It was further averred that since he is a chokotadar, therefore, he could not be evicted from the suit land without due process of law. Replication has also been filed. ... Brief facts of the case are that Ajit Singh etc. instituted a suit against Dhoop Singh defendant claiming possesion#HL....
The law imposes a liability on a tenant in common based on privity of estate for all covenants running with the land." Per B. B. Ghose, J., in Koilash v. Brojendra C. W. N. 1000 at p. 1006 : s. c. 42 C, L. J. 232 at p. 241 (F. B.) (1925). ... But absence of, possesion is cogent evidence to be taken into consideration with other facts in determining whether the inheritance was accepted or not. If the heir does not accept the inheritance, there is no privity of estate by succession. The decision in Peary Mohan Mookerjee v. ... The only point for determinatio....
On hearing both sides, the Executive First Class Magistrate held that the claim of actual possession of the disputed property by A-party is true and therefore: A-party was declared to be entitled to retain such possesion of the disputed property until ousted in due course of law. ... Peruse’ means to go through critically, read thoroughly or carefully. According to the Readers’ Digest Great Encyclopaedic Dictionary, the word “peruse” means “read thoroughly or carefully read; examine carefully.” It has been held in Shamsh....
A2: The features of Claim 1 are "a rolling means", "an unrolling means", and 'an engaging means", the latter having "at least a pair of engaging nails". ... The Malaysian Patent Application No: PI 98000107 in the instant case was filed on 10 January 1998, that is way after the 12 months stipulated period under the law. The implication is that the invention lacks novelty over the publication of the Japanese application on 19 December 1995. ... (Claim 1, 2) comprising- (a) a rolling means#HL_EN....
(a) a rolling means to roll the hem end of the mold, to the outside (Claim 1); (b) an unrolling means to unroll the hem end of the thin film material which is rolled by the rolling means wherein said unrolling means unrolls the hem end of said thin film material by blowing ... He can also identify steps which he believes would require a degree of lateral thinking and hence not be obvious to the skilled man (Terrell on the Law of Patents, 15th edn).
With respect to the challenge on the ground of excess of jurisdiction, it was submitted that it ought to have been tested on the basis of the proper law of the arbitration agreement i.e. the English law. Whether the Malaysian Courts were justified in applying the Malaysian law of public policy while deciding the challenge to the foreign award? The arbitration agreement is governed by “the laws of England” as provided by Article 34.12 of the PSC. The Malaysian Courts rightly examined the public policy challenge in accordance with the Malaysian Act, being the curial....
By cutting the cloth of the length of 100 metres into different sizes, the petitioner-Company is converting the cloth of huge length to some different use. In economics, what else does the term production means ? At one stage when the commodity is cut, to some extent the commodity is consumed, and when utility is added to it, it is used to some extent. Production would mean conversion/transformation of a matter into things useful.
Therefore, the submission means that the notification does what the law made by the Parliament does not empower it to do. Nevertheless, the notification extends the Bombay Rent Act not absolutely but only in such manner that it expired on 31st March, 1970.
Seizure means the act of taking possession of property by virtue of a warrant or legal authority. It is the power to take possesion of something after or by a court order, legislative enactment or other legal process.
The meaning of "possession" in section 58 of the Transfer of Property Act is not actual physical possesion but such possession which the property is capable of. In a usufructuary mortgage, on the other hand, the mortgagor delivers possession of the mortgaged property to the mortgagee or expressly or by implication binds himself to deliver such possession and authorises the mortgagee to retain such possession until payment of the mortgage-money and to receive rents and profits of the property and appropriate the same towards the satisfaction of the mortgage debt.
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
