MARUTHAYEE A/P P SANGRAR v M S CHRISTE A/L MARIA SOUCE

Case Significance

Illustrates the Eng Mee Yong framework governing the removal of a private caveat under the National Land Code: where the caveator shows an arguable interest and has a pending action to resolve a genuine dispute, the court will preserve the status quo and decline to remove the caveat.

This High Court decision concerns an application by originating summons under sections 327, 329 and 417 of the National Land Code for the removal of a private caveat (kaveat persendirian) that had been entered on a piece of land held under GRN 52481, Lot 198, Mukim Sungai Tiram, District of Johor Bahru. The plaintiff, the registered proprietor of the land, sought the removal of a private caveat that the defendant had lodged in December 2020. The caveat had its origins in an investment agreement made in March 2020, under which the defendant was to pay the plaintiff a deposit of RM150,000 followed by an estimated further sum once works were carried out on a progressive basis for the subdivision and development of the land. The governing question on an application to remove a caveat is whether the caveator has shown a caveatable interest and a serious question to be tried, and whether the balance of convenience favours maintaining the caveat pending the resolution of the underlying dispute; the court applied the established principles from Eng Mee Yong v Letchumanan and Wong Kuan Tan v Gambut Development Sdn Bhd, under which the caveator bears the onus of satisfying the court that the caveat should remain. Assessing the material, the court was satisfied that there was a real dispute between the parties over the land and the investment arrangement, that the defendant had commenced a suit to resolve that dispute, and that it was desirable that the status quo be preserved so that the proprietor could not deal with the land pending the disposal of that suit. On that basis the court dismissed the originating summons to remove the caveat, with costs of RM2,000 to be paid by the plaintiff to the defendant. The plaintiff appealed to the Court of Appeal. The judgment is a useful illustration of the application of the Eng Mee Yong framework to the retention of a private caveat where the caveator has an arguable interest and a pending action to vindicate it.