MAT SAAD BIN AHMAD v 1. ) MOHAMAD SUKRI BIN ABDULLAH 2. ) Mohamad Sukri Bin Abdullah Wakil Diri Bagi Harta Pusaka Dahman Bin Haji Mat Akib,simati

Case Significance

Illustrates that an undivided share in co-owned land does not carry a right to exclusive possession of any particular portion, and the weight given to an established communal arrangement among co-owners.

This High Court decision at Alor Setar, delivered by Dr John Lee Kien How @ Mohd Johan Lee J after a full trial, concerns a dispute over undivided land held in co-proprietorship. The judgment opens with the adage that "possession is nine-tenths of the law", observing that in the realm of undivided land and co-ownership that final tenth can be fiercely contested. The plaintiff, a registered co-owner, claimed that his undivided shares entitled him to exclusive possession of a specific portion of the land, and alleged that the defendant had unlawfully interfered with his rights. The defendant, sued in a personal capacity and as personal representative of the estate of a deceased co-owner, resisted the claim, asserting that the land had long been apportioned among the co-owners through mutual understanding.

The land was Lot 637 in Mukim Ayer Puteh, Daerah Pendang, Kedah, in which the plaintiff held 10,032/50,688 undivided shares and the defendant 6,384/50,688, with fourteen other co-owners not party to the dispute. Each co-owner held a specified undivided share as shown in the title deed, physically delineated by the site of each co-owner's residential compound under a long-standing communal arrangement. The Court framed the central questions as whether the plaintiff's undivided share conferred a right to exclusive possession of any specific portion of the land, and whether the plaintiff could override the long-standing communal arrangement among the co-owners.

Applying sections 342 and 343 of the National Land Code and authorities on co-ownership, the Court held that a tenant-in-common's undivided share entitles the co-owner to possession and enjoyment of the whole land in common with the others, but does not confer a right to exclusive possession of a defined portion, and that the plaintiff could not override the established communal arrangement. The Court dismissed the plaintiff's claim, made orders restraining the plaintiff and his representatives from disturbing, threatening or intimidating the defendant and his family, and ordered the plaintiff to pay costs of RM25,000 to the defendants. The judgment is a useful illustration of the principle that an undivided share does not carry a right to exclusive possession of any particular part of co-owned land, and of the weight courts give to established communal arrangements among co-owners.