UNIQUE LUXURY SDN. BHD. v BIGTOWN DEVELOPMENT SDN. BHD.

ka-24ncvc-351-10-2025 High Court (Mahkamah Tinggi) 21 April 2026 • KA-24NCvC-351-10/2025 • 26 min read
10 cases cited (0 SG, 10 foreign)

Outcome

commercial impasse exists, the Plaintiff's application is allowed. This Court hereby orders as follows: (a) The co-proprietorship between the Plaintiff and the Defendant over the Properties held under GRN 99162 (Lot 676) and GRN 99163 (Lot 677), Town of Alor Setar, is hereby terminated pursuant to Section 145 of the NLC; (b) The Defendant’s 42/4896 undivided share (representing 0.858% interest) shall be transferred to the Plaintiff via a direct buy-out mechanism at the certified market valuation price of RM161.

Quoted verbatim from the judgment of High Court (Mahkamah Tinggi) (ka-24ncvc-351-10-2025). Read the full judgment on the official Malaysia Courts portal for the complete decision.

Catchwords

LAND LAW: Co-proprietorship — Termination — Undivided shares — Mathematical disparity — Plaintiff holding 99.142% share and Defendant holding 0.858% share — Commercial deadlock on development and usage of lands — Application to terminate co-proprietorship under s. 145 of the National Land Code 1965 — Physical partition unfeasible for agricultural land — Whether court can order a direct buy-out of the minority's 0.858% share at market value — Inherent and additional powers of the High Court to order sale under s. 25(2) and Paragraph 3 of the Schedule to the Courts of Judicature Act 1964 read with Order 31 Rule 1 of the Rules of Court 2012. CIVIL PROCEDURE: Originating summons — Conversion to Writ action under Order 28 Rule 8 of the Rules of Court 2012 — Defendant asserting material disputes of fact regarding valuation and development feasibility — No allegations of fraud or bad faith pleaded — Summary disposal on affidavit evidence — Whether disagreement over valuation and prospective land-use requires oral testimony — Application of strict "bare denials" standard to affidavit disputes. CONSTITUTIONAL LAW & LAND LAW: Right to property — Indefeasibility of title — Whether a court-ordered sale under s. 145 NLC violates the right to property under Article 13 of the Federal Constitution or subverts indefeasibility under s. 340 NLC — Statutory exit mechanism as an Indigenous Torrens construct — Legitimate statutory termination of co-ownership as a deprivation "in accordance with law" — Concepts of immediate and deferred indefeasibility distinguished. EVIDENCE: Affidavit evidence — Conflicting assertions — Plaintiff adducing qualified expert valuation report — Defendant offering bare rhetorical denials and speculative future potentials without a counter-valuation report — Value of bare assertions — Uncontradicted expert evidence must be accepted by the court.

Practice Areas

Land Law Civil Procedure Constitutional Law

Judges (1)

John Lee Kien How @ Mohammad Johan Lee Delivered

Counsel (5)

Lee Law Chambers Firm Wong & Low Law Chambers Firm Low Siew Chen Counsel Defendant Ronald Lee Chun Lung Counsel Plaintiff Wong Yi Wen Counsel Defendant

Parties (2)

BIGTOWN DEVELOPMENT Sdn Bhd Respondent UNIQUE LUXURY Sdn Bhd Applicant

Statutes Cited

Courts of Judicature Act 1964 (Cap 91)
Federal Constitution
Art 13 Art 13(1)
National Land Code (Cap 828)
National Land Code 1965 (Cap 56)
Rules of Court 2012

Cases Cited (10)

MY (10)
[1992] 2 MLJ 217 [1995] 3 CLJ 690 [2003] 6 MLJ 38 [2009] MLJU 606 [2010] 2 MLJ 1 [2011] 6 MLJ 644 [2015] 8 CLJ 1 [2021] 2 MLJ 440 [2022] 5 MLJ 692 [2022] 7 CLJ 852

Judgment

Read the full judgment on the official Malaysia Courts portal.

Read on eJudgment

Source: eJudgment (ka-24ncvc-351-10-2025)