ZAHRAH @ MAKALTHOM BINTI MAT ALI v 1. ) MEK BINTI ISMAIL 2. ) MOHAMMAD BIN ISMAIL 3. ) NORAHSIAH BINTI ISMAIL 4. ) PETIMAH @ FATIMAH BINTI ISMAIL 5. ) RUHANI BINTI ISMAIL 6. ) SAI'DI BIN ISMAIL 7. ) MERIYAM BINTI DERAMAN 8. ) Pentadbir Tanah Jajahan Kota Bharu

Case Significance

Illustrates how a court chooses between competing partition schemes under section 145 of the National Land Code when terminating a co-proprietorship, weighing fairness, equality of area, access, and the preservation of existing buildings on the land.

This High Court decision at Kota Bharu concerns an application to terminate the co-proprietorship of jointly owned land and to partition it under section 145 of the National Land Code (Kanun Tanah Negara). The plaintiff and seven defendants, who were members of the same family, held the land in common. By an amended originating summons the plaintiff sought to bring the co-ownership to an end and to divide the land into two portions — one for the plaintiff and one to be shared among the defendants — and put forward a proposed partition scheme. The defendants opposed that scheme and advanced a competing proposal of their own. The court's task was to determine which of the two proposals was the fairer and more reasonable basis for terminating the co-ownership and effecting the partition, having regard to the requirements of section 145. Comparing the two schemes, the court preferred the plaintiff's proposal. It found that the plaintiff's scheme did not disturb any house already built on the land, and that where other structures were affected they could be relocated and had been compensated with an equivalent area; that all parties would receive the same area of land under it; that it avoided leaving the other co-owners with awkwardly shaped parcels; and that it gave the plaintiff's portion proper access, so that each co-owner could enjoy and make use of the share allotted to them. By contrast, the defendants' proposal was found not to meet the fairness required by section 145, since it would have produced parcels that were less equitable in shape and access for the remaining landowners. The court accordingly allowed the plaintiff's application to terminate the co-ownership and partition the land on the plaintiff's proposed lines, making no order as to costs; the defendants filed a notice of appeal. The judgment illustrates how a court chooses between competing partition schemes under section 145 of the National Land Code, weighing fairness, equality of area, access and the preservation of existing buildings.