SARAF BIN MARU v KHATAMMI DEVELOPMENT SDN BHD

Case Significance

Confirms that lodging a private caveat without a genuine caveatable interest — a registrable right in the land — exposes the caveator to substantial exemplary damages, here RM300,000, for obstructing the proprietor's enjoyment of his own land.

This High Court decision at Klang is an assessment of damages following the removal of a private caveat that a developer had wrongly lodged against a landowner's title. The plaintiff was the undisputed registered proprietor of land in Mukim Kapar, Daerah Klang. At the defendant developer's request, the parties had entered into a Perjanjian Jual Beli (Sale and Purchase Agreement) dated 27 July 2018 for the sale of the land at RM4,000,000, payable in five instalments. The defendant then lodged a private caveat over the land. The court had earlier, on 27 January 2025, allowed the plaintiff's application to remove the caveat and ordered the defendant to pay general and exemplary damages for the loss the plaintiff suffered from its existence; these grounds set out the assessment of those damages.

The court examined whether the defendant held any caveatable interest — a registrable right in the land — capable of supporting the caveat. It found that the plaintiff had good reason to decline to proceed with the sale, namely the defendant's own failure to pay the balance of the purchase price, and that a purchaser who had paid only part of the price acquired no registrable interest entitling it to caveat the land: "Defendan tidak mempunyai kepentingan boleh daftar atas hartanah itu" (the defendant had no registrable interest in the land). The caveat had therefore wrongly deprived the plaintiff of the right to enjoy the use of his own land.

On that basis, and having earlier ordered both general and exemplary damages, the court on assessment awarded the plaintiff exemplary damages of RM300,000 together with costs of RM5,000, payable by the defendant. The award reflected the seriousness of clouding a proprietor's title with a caveat that had no legal foundation, and the extent to which the plaintiff had been shut out from dealing with and enjoying his own land while the caveat remained on the register. The judgment illustrates that lodging a private caveat without a genuine caveatable interest exposes the caveator to a substantial damages award, particularly where the caveat has obstructed the proprietor's enjoyment and free disposition of his land.