YEO ENG HUI v 1. ) TAN CHAI SEW 2. ) MURUGAN 3. ) THIYAGU A/L SEUALKUMARAN 4. ) PENGHUNI-PENGHUNI YANG TIDAK DIKENALI DAN/ATAU ORANG-ORANG YANG TELAH MENDUDUKI DAN/ATAU BERADA DI ATAS HARTANAH YANG DIKENALI SEBAGAI GERAN MUKIM 6288, NO. LOT 1033, TEMPAT SUNGAI KANDIS, MUKIM KLANG, DAERAH KLANG, NEGERI SELANGOR BERALAMAT DI LOT 1033-R8, BATU 3, JALAN KAMPUNG JAWA, KAMPUNT SUNGAI KANDIS SEKSYEN 36, 40470 SHAH ALAM, SELANGOR DI LOT 10,11,12,13,14,28 DAN LOT 1033-R8, LOT 1033-R9, LOT 1033-R10 JAL...

Case Significance

Applies the Order 89 summary possession jurisdiction and the indefeasibility of registered title under the National Land Code against occupiers who cannot show consent, tenancy or title.

This High Court decision concerns an application for summary possession of land brought under Order 89 of the Rules of Court 2012. The plaintiff had bought a share in a parcel of land held under a Geran Mukim title and, after registration, became the registered proprietor of a 3/16 undivided share that included the lots in dispute. Three houses stood on the relevant lots. Several occupiers were on the land: the first defendant, who occupied one of the houses and filed no affidavit to resist the application, and the second and third defendants, who occupied two further houses and challenged the plaintiff’s claim. Because the first defendant filed no affidavit in reply, the application was effectively unopposed as against that occupier, and the live contest was with the second and third defendants alone. The two contested issues were whether those defendants had shown that they were not squatters and had permission to occupy, and whether the plaintiff had the right to possession. On the first issue the Court held that the second and third defendants were neither tenants, tenants holding over, nor occupiers present with the licence or consent of the plaintiff or his predecessor in title, so there was no triable issue and the matter was properly suited to the summary procedure under Order 89. The Court noted, applying Kabra Holdings Sdn Bhd v Ahmad Shahlan, that adverse possession however long can never confer a right to occupy against a registered title, given sections 48 and 341 of the National Land Code. On the second issue, the Court was satisfied that the plaintiff had specified his interest as Order 89 rule 3 requires and, as registered proprietor, held rights that accrued on registration under section 340 of the National Land Code, following Bukit Lenang Development Sdn Bhd. Both issues were resolved in the plaintiff’s favour. The judgment is a compact statement of how the summary possession jurisdiction is used to recover land from occupiers who cannot point to any consent or title.