KINDING MAJU SDN BHD v 1. ) CHING KIM CHOW 2. ) CHONG YAN CHIN 3. ) MOK YAKE FOO 4. ) PUOH LYE HAI @ POH KOOI KHOON 5. ) POH SIN LOON 6. ) SING MOK HA @ MOK HA SING 7. ) WONG MEI YING 8. ) WOO KONG WAH 9. ) WONG MIN 10. ) Orang-orang yang tidak dikenali yang menduduki di tanah yang dipegang dibawah Pajakan Mukim 37497, Lot 550658 (dahulunya dikenali sebagai H.S.(M) 23318 PT 286270), Pajakan Mukim 37498, Lot 550659 (dahulunya dikenali sebagai H.S.(M) 23319 PT 286271), Pajakan Mukim 37499, Lot ...

Case Significance

Illustrates the strength of a registered proprietor's right to possession under the Torrens system: once registered title through a valid alienation is established, occupiers who cannot show a subsisting legal or equitable right to remain will be ordered to give vacant possession and may be restrained from re-entering the land.

This High Court decision at Ipoh concerns a registered proprietor's claim for vacant possession of land against occupiers. The plaintiff company sued a group of named individuals, together with unidentified persons in occupation, in respect of several parcels of leasehold land, seeking vacant possession on the footing that it was the lawful registered proprietor of the lands and that the occupiers had no right to remain. The central questions were who was the lawful registered proprietor of the lands, how the lands had come to be alienated to that proprietor, and whether the defendants had any legitimate right to remain on them. Under the Torrens system of registered title, the registered proprietor of land ordinarily has an indefeasible title and, with it, the right to possession as against a person who cannot show a superior or subsisting right — a lease, a licence, an equity, or some other recognised interest — to remain. Having examined the process of alienation and the parties' respective positions, the court was satisfied that the plaintiff was the lawful registered proprietor and that the defendants had no legitimate right to remain on the lands. It made orders for vacant possession, restrained the defendants by injunction from re-entering or interfering with the lands after eviction, and ordered the defendants to pay costs of RM10,000 to the plaintiff in equal share. The judgment is a useful illustration of the strength of a registered proprietor's right to possession under the Torrens system: once the plaintiff establishes that it holds the registered title through a valid process of alienation, occupiers who cannot demonstrate a subsisting legal or equitable right to remain will be ordered to give vacant possession and may be restrained from re-entering the land. The decision also shows the court joining unidentified occupiers as defendants so that the possession and injunction orders bind everyone on the land, and awarding costs against the named occupiers in equal share, giving the registered proprietor an effective and enforceable remedy against a body of trespassers.