PUN CHAN THAI v CHAI SHAN FOO

Case Significance

Confirms that a caveator seeking to extend a private caveat under section 326(2) of the National Land Code must first establish a serious question to be tried; a bare assertion of an underlying impropriety, without sufficient supporting grounds, will not sustain a caveat against a registered proprietor.

This High Court decision at Shah Alam concerns an application to extend private caveats over land pending a probate dispute among a deceased's heirs, and the threshold a caveator must cross to keep a caveat alive. By originating summons the plaintiff sought an order extending private caveats — one lodged by the deceased and one by the plaintiff — over land at Kampung Baru Sungai Buloh, Daerah Petaling, under section 326(2) of the National Land Code, pending the disposal of probate proceedings between the heirs of the deceased. The defendant was a purchaser of the property from the deceased, whose title to the land had already been registered. The plaintiff contended that the sale and purchase had been founded on an unlawful moneylending arrangement by the deceased's son, which had caused the property to be transferred to the defendant.

The court applied the familiar two-stage test for the extension of a private caveat, which mirrors the approach to an interim injunction: the caveator must show that there is a serious question to be tried, and, if so, that the balance of convenience favours maintaining the caveat. On the first limb the court found that the plaintiff had failed to demonstrate sufficient grounds to establish a serious question to be tried in support of the relief sought. Because that issue was answered against the plaintiff, the balance of convenience necessarily fell against continuing the caveats over the registered proprietor's title.

The court dismissed the originating summons and declined to extend the private caveats, with costs of RM2,000 subject to allocator; the plaintiff appealed. The judgment illustrates that a caveator seeking to prolong a private caveat must first establish a serious question to be tried, and that a bare assertion of an underlying impropriety, without sufficient supporting grounds, will not sustain a caveat against a registered proprietor.