1. ) LIM YIT KIAN 2. ) LIM SHU JING v 1. ) MJV GROUP BERHAD (yang dahulunya dikenali sebagai I SYNERGY UNIVERSAL HOLDINGS SDN BHD) 2. ) PENGARAH TANAH DAN GALIAN NEGERI KELANTAN

Case Significance

Illustrates the caveatable-interest requirement under section 327(1) of the National Land Code: a purchaser who has relinquished its interest under a terminated sale and purchase agreement, and whose remaining claim is purely monetary, cannot sustain a private caveat against the proprietor's land.

This High Court decision at Kota Bharu concerns an application to remove a private caveat under section 327(1) of the National Land Code, and the requirement that a caveator demonstrate a genuine caveatable interest. The applicants, the registered proprietors, sought to remove a private caveat that the first respondent had lodged over their land, the second respondent being the Land Registry. Because the applicants are natural persons named only as parties, this analysis refers to them by role, while the corporate first respondent and the Land Registry are named or described by office.

The court set out the settled test on an application to remove a private caveat. The party that lodged the caveat must show that it holds a caveatable interest in the land — an interest recognised by law as supporting a caveat — that the interest raises a serious question to be tried, and that, on the balance of convenience, it is better to maintain the status quo by keeping the caveat until the trial of the substantive action. The burden thus rests on the caveator to justify the continuation of its caveat.

On the facts, the first respondent could not meet that test. It had itself agreed to, or accepted, the termination of the sale and purchase agreement by its own letter, and thereafter merely claimed the return of its deposit and the cost of refurbishing the property. It had also failed to comply with the notice of demand and termination by not paying the balance of the purchase price within the stipulated time. A claim limited to the recovery of money — a deposit and costs — is not an interest in the land capable of supporting a caveat, and the court found no agreement establishing any such proprietary interest. The judgment is a useful illustration of the caveatable-interest requirement under section 327(1): a purchaser who has lost or relinquished its interest under a terminated sale and purchase agreement, and whose remaining claim is purely monetary, cannot sustain a private caveat against the proprietor's land.