Jaganathan A/l Malayappan v Pentadbir Tanah Daerah Klang (BA-24NCvC-2403-10/2025)

GURUSAMY A/L VELLASAMY (Diwakili oleh Shekar A/L Gurusamy, waris kepada Si Mati) 06/07/2026 10:03:04 BA-24NCvC-2403-10/2025 Kand. 61

PALANIAMMAL A/P PERUMAL (Diwakili oleh Shekar A/L Gurusamy, waris kepada Si Mati)

10.

11.

SIVA KUMAR A/L PONNIAH …PLANTIFFS AND PENTADBIR TANAH DAERAH KLANG GOH SWEE SWAN (Sebagai Pemegang Amanah) … DEFENDANTS GROUNDS OF JUDGMENT

My judgment concerns a long-standing property dispute progressed in the workings of a compulsory land acquisition. Twelve Plaintiffs come before this Court seeking a declaration of their beneficial entitlement to a substantial compensation fund, specifically, currently held in the custody of the Court. This fund represents 75% of the compensation awarded for the compulsory acquisition of Lot 15769, Mukim Klang, Selangor. The First Defendant, the Klang District Land Administrator, remains a neutral stakeholder and takes no issue with the Plaintiffs claim. However, the application faces resistance from the Second Defendant, Goh Swee Wan, holding title strictly as a trustee, opposing the release that the Plaintiffs have failed to sufficiently, to map out the precise borders of their beneficial ownership. BACKGROUND FACTS Circumstances surrounding the Compulsory Acquisition of Lot 15769

By Warta Kerajaan Negeri Selangor No. 1350 dated 27 May 2021 published pursuant to section 8 of the Land Acquisition Act 1960, the First Defendant declared its intention to acquire a portion of the land held under HSD 134360, PT 127726 (Lot 15769), Mukim Klang, Daerah Klang, Negeri Selangor, measuring approximately 13,755 square meters, for the purpose of the construction of the West Coast Expressway. The acquisition concerns only part of Lot 15769 and not the entirety of the land comprised therein.

Following publication of the Gazette, D1 conducted an inquiry pursuant to section 12 of the LAA to determine the persons interested in the Acquired Land and the compensation payable. Upon completion of the inquiry, D1 issued Borang H (Notice of Award and Offer of Compensation) dated 12 May 2023, awarding compensation in the total sum of RM11,004,000.00, calculated at the rate of RM800.00 per square meter.

In addition to the award for the land, D1 separately assessed and paid compensation to the Plaintiffs for the buildings and structures erected on their respective sub-lots under the Borang H process. Those payments were made directly to the Plaintiffs, thereby acknowledging and recognising each Plaintiff as a person interested within the meaning of the LAA in respect of the Acquired Land.

As the registered proprietor of Lot 15769 is the D2, who holds the land as trustee for numerous beneficial owners with competing claims to the compensation, D1 applied to the High Court in Shah Alam in OS No. BA-24NCvC-1527-08/2023 for leave to deposit seventy-five per cent (75%) of the compensation, amounting to RM8,253,000.00, into Court pending determination of the competing claims. By an Order dated 29 August 2023, the High Court granted the application. The remaining twenty-five per cent (25%), amounting to RM2,751,000.00, continues to be retained by D1 pursuant to section 29A of the LAA pending the final resolution of all competing interests. History of Lot 15769 and the Trust Arrangement

Lot 15769 originates from Geran 20045, Lot 10435, Mukim Klang, Daerah Klang, which was originally registered in the names of Ng Soon Beng, Ng Yeow Chee and Tan Teck Sim as registered proprietors and trustees. The original proprietors subdivided the land into several sub-lots and sold those sub-lots to twelve (12) purchasers, including D2 and his wife, together with the remaining purchasers identified in D2's affidavit evidence.

By a Declaration of Trust dated 28 December 2007, prepared by Messrs Gill & Tang, D2 expressly agreed to hold the land as trustee for all the purchasers solely to facilitate the administrative process of obtaining approvals from the relevant authorities for subdivision of the land and the eventual issuance of separate individual titles. The trust arrangement was created by mutual agreement for administrative convenience only and did not confer upon D2 any beneficial ownership of the land held on trust. D2 therefore assumed the role of a bare trustee.

Thereafter, by Form 14A dated 15 January 2008, the former trustees, namely Ng Yeow Chee, Ng Soon Beng and Tan Teck Sim, transferred the legal title to D2 upon payment of RM50,653.50 made by Vellusamy s/o Suppiah and VC Rajappan s/o Chinna Koundan, acting as representatives of the twelve purchasers.

In or about 2009, D2 applied for subdivision and conversion of land use in respect of his own beneficial portion of the property. As a result, a separate title, namely PT 127727 measuring approximately one (1) acre, was issued on or about 10 December 2009 in the name of Ming Giap Sdn Bhd, a company owned by D2's children. Following that subdivision, the remaining land became PT 127726 (Lot 15769), measuring approximately 10.41 acres (4.2123 hectares).

Upon the issuance of PT 127727, D2 had effectively extracted and separated his own beneficial interest from the trust property. From that point onwards, D2 retained the legal title to Lot 15769 solely as a bare trustee for the remaining purchasers and their successors in title. D2 has no remaining beneficial or equitable interest whatsoever in the Acquired Land forming part of Lot 15769. The Plaintiffs and Their Respective Sub-Lots

Each Plaintiff derives his or her interest in a distinct sub-lot within Lot 15769 through a valid chain of sale and purchase agreements, deeds of assignment and related conveyancing documents executed over the years. In every instance, the purchase consideration was fully paid, possession was delivered and the respective Plaintiff has remained in open, continuous and uninterrupted occupation of the relevant sub-lot. The Plaintiffs' interests may be summarised as follows:

(a) P1 (Jaganathan a/l Malyappan) acquired Sub-lot DE3 pursuant to a Deed of Assignment dated 17 November 1980 executed by his father, Malayappan a/l Marudamuthu, by way of love and affection. P1 has occupied the land since 1980, constructed a building thereon and received building compensation of RM67,650.00.

(b) P2 and P3 (Vijan a/l Mariappan and Vijayagomaran a/l Mariappan) acquired Sub-lot DE4 pursuant to a Sale and Purchase Agreement dated 10 April 1995 from Jaya Bal Naidu a/l Veerasamy Naidu for RM24,000.00, which was fully paid. They have occupied the land since 1995, erected rental buildings thereon and received building compensation of RM591,725.00.

(c) P4 (Sushilar a/p Raman) acquired Sub-lots DE5, DE9 and F1 under Sale and Purchase Agreements dated 29 August 1994 and 18 April 1996 and a Deed of Assignment dated 4 January 2002, for full consideration amounting to RM95,500.00. P4 has remained in occupation, constructed buildings on the land and received compensation totalling RM917,550.00.

(d) P5 and P6 (Gurusamy a/l Vellasamy and Palaniammal a/p Perumal, represented by Shekar a/l Gurusamy) acquired Sub-lot DE10 pursuant to a Sale and Purchase Agreement dated 7 June 1999 and a Deed of Assignment dated 17 July 1999 for RM44,000.00, fully paid. They have occupied the land since 1999 and received building compensation of RM505,300.00.

(e) P7 (S. Prakash a/l P. Shangan) acquired Sub-lot B16 (also identified as F2 in the survey plan) pursuant to a Sale and Purchase Agreement dated 19 January 2015 for RM100,000.00, fully paid. He has occupied the land since 2015 and received building compensation of RM861,500.00.

(f) P8 (Thirunavukkarasu a/l Samiappan) acquired Sub-lots F3, F4 and F5 pursuant to three separate Sale and Purchase Agreements dated 12 December 2007 and 12 May 2008 for a total consideration of RM123,000.00, fully paid. He has occupied the sub-lots continuously since purchase and received building compensation of RM1,037,500.00.

(g) P9 (Ganesan a/l Pitchan) acquired Sub-lot K3 pursuant to a Sale and Purchase Agreement dated 31 July 2013 from Alagie d/o Andy for RM40,000.00, fully paid. He has occupied the land since 2013, leased it to Rajah Excavator Services and received building compensation of RM3,000.00.

(h) P10 (Sinnammah a/p Mariappan) acquired Sub-lot K4 pursuant to a Sale and Purchase Agreement dated 7 December 1998 for RM25,000.00, fully paid. She has occupied the land since 1998, leased it to Rajah Excavator Services and received building compensation of RM6,000.00.

(i) P11 (Subramaniam a/l Krishnasamy) acquired Sub-lot K5

(j) P12 (Siva Kumar a/l Ponniah) acquired Sub-lot K12 pursuant to a Deed of Assignment dated 25 August 2005 for RM25,000.00, fully paid. He has occupied the land since 2005, constructed a building thereon and received building compensation of RM692,480.00.

The uninterrupted occupation of the respective sub-lots by the Plaintiffs over many years, coupled with D1's separate assessment and payment of compensation for the buildings and structures erected thereon, is wholly consistent with the Plaintiffs' status as persons beneficially interested in the Acquired Land. D1's conduct in recognising each Plaintiff for the purposes of compensation for improvements is entirely consistent with the Plaintiffs' proprietary interests in their respective sub-lots.

For the purpose of the present application, the Plaintiffs instructed Indah Geomatik Sdn Bhd, a licensed land surveyor, to prepare a Pre-Comp Plan identifying the location and boundaries of each Plaintiff's respective sub-lot within Lot 15769 and the extent to which each sub- lot falls within the Acquired Land. The survey findings correspond with the particulars contained in Lampiran A to Enclosure 1.

Based on the said Pre-Comp Plan and Lampiran A, the Plaintiffs' respective portions of the Acquired Land collectively attract compensation amounting to RM3,494,420.40, representing seventy-five per cent (75%) of the compensation payable at the awarded rate of RM800.00 per square meter. The Plaintiffs accordingly seek an order that the said sum be released to them from the RM8,253,000.00 presently deposited in Court, being the portion of the compensation properly attributable to their respective beneficial interests in the Acquired Land.

The principal issues arising for determination are as follows:

(a) Whether the Plaintiffs are "persons interested" within the meaning of section 2 of LAA and are accordingly beneficially entitled to receive the compensation payable in respect of their respective interests in the Acquired Land;

(b) Whether the Plaintiffs have, on the balance of probabilities, established their respective beneficial ownership of the claimed sub-lots through the documentary evidence adduced before this Honourable Court;

(c) Whether the objections raised by the Second Defendant ("D2"), namely in relation to the alleged defects in the Plaintiffs' root of title, the identification and measurement of the sub-lots and the locus standi of the Fifth and Sixth Plaintiffs, disclose any valid legal or evidential basis sufficient to defeat or diminish the Plaintiffs' claims to the compensation monies;

(d) Whether D2, having accepted and acted in the capacity of a bare trustee, retains any beneficial or equitable interest in the compensation monies capable of preventing or postponing payment to the Plaintiffs; and

(e) Whether, in the circumstances of the present case, this Honourable Court ought to order that the compensation monies attributable to the Plaintiffs' respective beneficial interests be released from the funds deposited in Court and paid to the Plaintiffs' solicitors as stakeholders pending distribution to the Plaintiffs. THE APPLICABLE LAW Person Interested

Section 2 of the LAA defines a “person interested” as including every person claiming an interest in compensation arising from the compulsory acquisition of land, save for a tenant at will. The deliberate breadth of this definition is central to the legislative purpose of the LAA. It is settled law that the LAA is a special statute operating beyond the ambit of the NLC. The Federal Court in Perbadanan Kemajuan Pertanian Selangor v JW Properties Sdn Bhd [2017] 5 MLRA 633 authoritatively held that the interest required to entitle a claimant to compensation under the LAA is materially wider than the concept of registrable interest under the NLC.

Furthermore, a claimant need not necessarily establish a registrable interest in land as it suffices to establish an interest in the compensation itself. The Court also clarified the requirement of State Authority consent under the NLC is irrelevant in determining entitlement to compensation under the LAA. The Federal Court affirmed the principle of constructive trust, holding that such a trust arises by operation of law whenever it would be unconscionable for the legal owner to deny another’s beneficial interest. Thus, it would be inequitable for a proprietor to assert exclusive entitlement to compensation while denying the equitable rights of others.

The categories of “persons interested” were helpfully enumerated by the Court of Appeal in Sistem Penyuraian Trafik KL Barat Sdn Bhd v Kenny Height Development Sdn Bhd [2009] 1 MLRA 674, which expressly recognized that a purchaser under a contract of sale is deemed a beneficial owner and that beneficiaries under a trust are likewise classified as persons interested. These authorities collectively underscore that the LAA protects both legal and equitable interests, ensuring that compensation is awarded to those with genuine beneficial claims arising from compulsory acquisition. Burden and Standard of Proof

The burden of establishing entitlement to compensation lies squarely on the Plaintiffs, who must discharge it on the balance of probabilities

In the context of land without individual titles, beneficial ownership is typically established through contractual instruments such as sale and purchase agreements and deeds of assignment, evidencing the transactional chain from the original source, together with proof of payment and possession. In the Defendants reference to the learned author Ng Kok Wai in Conveyancing in Malaysia, Law and Practice (2nd Edition, 2011) at page 349, states that "beneficial ownership is proved only if the original documents evidencing such ownership can be produced."

In my opinion, the requirement to trace root of title must be evaluated based on circumstance. Where the transactional chain is imperfect but consistent with surrounding evidence including payment, occupation and recognition by third parties, such as the payment of Borang H compensation by the Land Administrator for structure, the Court is entitled to draw the reasonable inference that beneficial ownership has been established. The Court should not impose the strict conveyancing standards of the Torrens system in circumstances where equitable interests are at stake under the LAA. The Bare Trustee's Position

A bare trustee holds legal title purely for the benefit of others without any active duties beyond transferring the property when called upon. A bare trustee who derives no beneficial interest of his own is not entitled to retain compensation monies intended for the beneficial owners. The trustee's role is ministerial, he stands in the shoes of the beneficial owners for the purpose of the LAA. The fact that the land was not yet formally subdivided does not extinguish the beneficial interests of the sub-lot purchasers. Issue (a): Are the Plaintiffs "Persons Interested" within the meaning of the LAA?

I find, without any difficulty, that each of the twelve (12) Plaintiffs qualifies as a "person interested" within the meaning of Section 2 of the LAA. Their interest arises in two independent ways. First, each Plaintiff holds a contractual and / or an equitable interest in their respective sub-lot within the Acquired Land through SPAs and / or deeds of assignment. These are precisely the categories of persons interest enumerated in the case of Sistem Penyuraian Trafik (supra). A purchaser under a SPA or a deed of assignment for land subject to compulsory acquisition is recognised as a beneficial owner for the purposes of the LAA.

Secondly, D1 itself, through the Borang H process, recognised each of P1 to P12 as persons with an interest in the Acquired Land by paying compensation to them individually for their buildings and structures situated thereon. This is a significant and powerful concession. It would be inconsistent for the Court to find that persons whom D1 has expressly recognised as having an interest in the Acquired Land sufficient to receive structural compensation, do not qualify as "persons interested" in the compensation for the land itself. D1's conduct constitutes an implicit recognition of the Plaintiffs status as persons interested. I accordingly find that all twelve (12) Plaintiffs are "persons interested" within the meaning of the LAA. Issue (b): Have the Plaintiffs established Beneficial Ownership on the Balance of Probabilities?

D1 filed no reply to affidavits and is deemed to have accepted all averments of fact in the Plaintiffs affidavits. D2, while filing reply affidavits, has not denied the authenticity of the Plaintiffs documents and only asserts that the documents are incomplete or that certain matters are not within D2's personal knowledge. There is no competing claimant that has come forward to challenge the Plaintiffs interest.

The evidence before the Court in support of each Plaintiffs beneficial ownership is cogent and consistent. The following features of the evidence are particularly significant: -

(a) Long-standing uninterrupted occupation Several Plaintiffs (including P1 since 1980, P11 since 1984, P2/P3 since 1995) have been in quiet and undisturbed occupation of their respective sub-lots for periods ranging from a decade to over four decades. This is the strongest possible evidence of beneficial ownership in the context of property without individual title.

(b) Full payment of consideration Each Plaintiff has fully paid the purchase price for their respective sub-lot. The amounts range from RM2,000.00 (P11) to RM100,000.00 (P7). Receipts and SPA terms confirm payment.

(c) Construction of buildings and improvements Multiple Plaintiffs (P1, P2/P3, P4, P5/P6, P7, P8, P11, P12) have constructed buildings and structures on their sub-lots at their own expense, further evidencing their treatment of the sub-lots as their own property.

(d) Recognition by D1: As noted above, D1 paid structural compensation to each Plaintiff under Borang H, which presupposes that D1 recognised their status as persons with an interest in the Acquired Land.

(e) Absence of competing claims No person has filed an affidavit in these proceedings asserting any superior or competing interest in any of the sub-lots claimed by the Plaintiffs. The absence of competing claims militates strongly in favour of the Plaintiffs.

(f) Pre-Comp Plan by licensed surveyor The Plaintiffs engaged a licensed surveyor, Indah Geomatik Sdn Bhd, to prepare a Pre-Comp Plan delineating the sub-lots and the acquired portions. This plan is authoritative, professionally prepared and uncontroverted.

I am satisfied, on the balance of probabilities, that each of the twelve Plaintiffs have established beneficial ownership of their respective sub-lot(s) within the Acquired Land. Issue (c): D2's Objections as to root of title, sub-lot measurements and P5 and P6's Standing

D2 raises a number of objections going to the sufficiency of the Plaintiffs' evidence. I shall address each category of objection in turn. Root of Title Objections

D2 contends that the Plaintiffs have failed to produce the "root of title" agreements referred to in various SPAs and deeds of assignment, namely, the earlier agreements in the chain of title from which each SPA ultimately derives. D2 relies on the principle in Savanna Rasoo v Tan Song Hong [1937] 1 MLJ 229 and the academic commentary of Ng Kok Wai that beneficial ownership in property without individual title requires production of original documents tracing the chain from the first transaction.

While I accept the general principle that proving beneficial ownership of property without individual title ideally requires tracing the chain of transactions from inception, this principle must be applied with proportionality and with regard to the totality of the evidence before the Court. It is not an uncompromising rule of absolute proof.

In the present case, the following considerations lead me to conclude that D2's root of title objections do not succeed:

(a) The original trust deed of 28 December 2007 specifically records the sub-lot purchasers and their respective parcels. The context of the entire arrangement in which the original proprietors subdivided and sold sub-lots to eleven (11) groups of buyers, is acknowledged by D2's own affidavit. The underlying structure of beneficial ownership is not in dispute.

(b) The Plaintiffs are not seeking to enforce contracts but claiming compensation from the Government arising from the compulsory acquisition of land in which they have an equitable interest. The Federal Court in JW Properties made clear that a purchaser need only establish an interest in the compensation, not a fully-registrable interest in land under the NLC.

(c) Where the complete historical chain of title is unavailable, the missing prior instruments do not defeat a Plaintiff's claim if they constitute remote transactions rather than the immediate conveyance between the Plaintiff and their predecessor-in-title. Consequently, the production of the primary Sale and Purchase Agreement or Deed of Assignment, when corroborated by proof of consideration and undisturbed, long-standing possession, is sufficient to discharge the evidential burden to establish beneficial ownership on a balance of probabilities.

(d) D2's reply affidavits deny personal knowledge but do not positively assert that any Plaintiff has produced forged documents, or that any of the purchase transactions did not occur. The objections are purely technical.

(e) D1, the Land Administrator who conducted the inquiry and is best placed to assess the legitimacy of the Plaintiffs interests, did not file any affidavit disputing the Plaintiffs claims. D1's payment of Borang H compensation to each Plaintiff for their structures is highly persuasive corroboration of the legitimacy of their interests.

For these reasons, I do not accept D2's root of title objections as a ground for dismissing the Plaintiffs claims. The Plaintiffs have discharged the burden of proof on the balance of probabilities by reference to the entirety of the evidence, notwithstanding the absence of certain antecedent documents. Sub-Lot Measurement Objections

D2 raises discrepancies between the sub-lot areas stated in the various SPAs (often expressed in feet and inches or as approximate acreage) and the areas set out in the Pre-Comp Plan (expressed in square meters). D2 contends these discrepancies demonstrate that the Plaintiffs have failed to prove the precise extent of their sub-lots.

I reject this objection for the following reasons:

(a) The SPAs in question are informal agreements, many drafted decades ago, which typically described areas in approximate terms consistent with the practice of the time for unsubdivided land without individual titles. Minor discrepancies between the stated area in a SPA and the area as measured by a licensed surveyor are to be expected and do not undermine the validity of the underlying transaction.

(b) The Pre-Comp Plan was prepared by a licensed surveyor, Indah Geomatik Sdn Bhd, in accordance with professional surveying standards. It is the most authoritative and reliable document for the purpose of determining the actual area of each sub-lot within the Acquired Land. D2 has not produced any competing survey or measurement to challenge the Pre-Comp Plan.

(c) In the absence of any competing survey or sworn evidence challenging the accuracy of the Pre-Comp Plan, I accept the Pre-Comp Plan as an accurate and reliable basis for apportioning the compensation.

(d) D2's objections on measurement were first raised in submissions from the bar, without any prior affidavit evidence. Late objections not supported by sworn evidence carry little weight.

I accordingly accept the Pre-Comp Plan as the authoritative basis for determining the acquired area attributable to each sub-lot and find that the compensation calculations in Lampiran A of Enclosure 1 are well-founded. P5 and P6's Standing

D2 contends that the claims of P5 (Gurusamy a/l Vellasamy) and P6 (Palaniammal a/p Perumal) are fatally defective because both have passed away and their heir Shekar a/l Gurusamy has not produced a Grant of Probate or Letters of Administration to establish his representative capacity. D2 relies on Ang Hoi Yin v Sim Sie Hau [1969] 2 MLJ 3, which held that an action commenced by a person without extracted letters of administration is a nullity.

I have carefully considered this objection. The authority in Ang Hoi Yin is well-established and I do not depart from it. However, I make the following observations:

(a) The SPAs and deeds of assignment in favour of P5 and P6 in respect of Sub-lot DE10 are valid and subsisting documents. The beneficial interest in Sub-lot DE10 vested in P5 and P6 by virtue of those instruments.

(b) Upon the death of P5 and P6, their estate, including their beneficial interest in Sub-lot DE10, passes to their heirs under the Distribution Act 1958 or the relevant personal law. Shekar a/l Gurusamy, as an heir of both P5 and P6, has a legitimate claim to the estate's share of the compensation.

(c) The appropriate resolution is not to strike out the claim in respect of Sub-lot DE10 entirely, but to stay or defer payment of the compensation attributable to P5 and P6's sub-lot pending the extraction of a Grant of Probate or Letters of Administration by the appropriate personal representative of their estate, or an order authorising payment to Shekar a/l Gurusamy in his capacity as administrator.

Accordingly, I order that the compensation attributable to P5 and P6's Sub-lot DE10 be held by the Court pending presentation by Shekar a/l Gurusamy or any other interested party of appropriate probate or administration papers. The remaining compensation for P1 to P4 and P7 to P12 shall be released as ordered. Issue (d): D2's Position as Bare Trustee

It is clear from the evidence that D2 holds Lot 15769 as a bare trustee with no residual beneficial interest in the Acquired Land or the compensation. The following facts establish this beyond doubt:

(a) D2 agreed by the Declaration of Trust dated 28 December 2007 to act as trustee solely for the purpose of facilitating the subdivision and issuance of individual titles for the benefit of the buyers. This was an administrative arrangement.

(b) D2 extracted his own beneficial sub-lot (PT 127727, 1.0 acre) around 2009, which was issued in the name of Ming Giap Sdn Bhd (D2's family company). D2 has therefore already received the benefit of his own interest.

(c) D2 has not advanced any claim to the compensation monies, whether on his own behalf or on behalf of any other identified person. D2 has not produced any declaration or other document showing that there are persons other than the Plaintiffs with an interest in Lot 15769 who have not come forward.

(d) As bare trustee, D2 has a fiduciary duty to transfer the beneficial interests to the relevant parties and to co-operate in the administration of the land. D2's failure to take any steps to facilitate the subdivision and issuance of individual titles over many years and his failure to attend the land inquiry or advance the interests of the beneficial owners in the compensation process, constitutes a persistent failure to discharge his trustee duties.

I find that D2 holds Lot 15769 as a bare trustee with no beneficial interest of his own in the Acquired Land or the compensation deposited in Court. D2 is not entitled to the compensation monies. It would be unconscionable for D2 to assert any interest over the compensation to the detriment of the Plaintiffs, who have paid the purchase price, occupied their sub-lots and established their beneficial interests.

To the extent that D2's position as registered trustee could be said to attract the principle of a constructive trust in favour of the Plaintiffs, I am also satisfied that the facts fall squarely within the reasoning of the Federal Court in JW Properties, it would be unconscionable for D2 to deny the Plaintiffs rightful beneficial interests and a constructive trust in favour of the Plaintiffs has arisen by operation of law. Issue (e): Payment to Plaintiffs' Solicitors as Stakeholders

The Plaintiffs sought an order for the compensation to be paid into the Client Account of their solicitors, Messrs Farah A. Zabir & Partners, as stakeholders. D2 submits that there is no provision under the LAA authorising payment of compensation to solicitors as stakeholders.

The LAA contemplates payment directly to persons interested (Section 14 and Form H). However, the Court has an inherent jurisdiction and power under Order 90 Rule 8 of the Rules of Court 2012 to give directions as to the payment out of funds deposited in Court. The payment of compensation to the Plaintiffs solicitors as stakeholders pending distribution to individual Plaintiffs is a matter of practical convenience and is within the Court's discretionary powers over funds in Court. Such an arrangement has been adopted in several similar cases (including the four related Shah Alam High Court decisions referred to below).

Payment to the Plaintiffs solicitors has to be made, as stakeholders on the basis that they shall forthwith distribute the same to the respective Plaintiffs in accordance with the apportionment in Lampiran A, save for the portion referable to P5 and P6 which is to be retained pending probate, as addressed above.

I note that there have been four (4) earlier decisions of this Court dealing with similar facts arising from the same compulsory acquisition of Lot 15769 and the same trust arrangement, namely:

(a) Shah Alam High Court Originating Summons No. BA-24NCvC- 834-08/2020;

(b) Shah Alam High Court Originating Summons No. BA-24NCvC- 120-01/2022;

(c) Shah Alam High Court Originating Summons No. BA-24NCvC- 535-03/2023; and

(d) Shah Alam High Court Originating Summons No. BA-24NCvC- 293-02/2024.

All four (4) earlier decisions were decided in favour of applicants in materially similar circumstances to the present Plaintiffs namely, persons claiming beneficial ownership of sub-lots within Lot 15769 through SPAs and deeds of assignment and seeking release of the court-deposited compensation. These decisions are, while not binding precedent, highly persuasive as they deal with the identical property, identical trust arrangement and identical type of factual background.

The consistent pattern of the four earlier decisions reinforces the propriety and soundness of the present order. The approach taken in those cases recognising beneficial ownership through occupation, payment and documentary evidence and allowing the release of the compensation to the beneficial owners is consistent with the applicable law and I adopt it here.

The Plaintiffs have demonstrated possession and enjoyment of their sub-lots and have shown payment consideration and documentary proof sufficient to establish beneficial interest on the balance of probabilities. There are no rival claimants in sworn evidence that would displace the Plaintiff’ claims. The Pre-Comp / Survey Plan prepared by the licensed surveyor is accepted as a correct and reliable working plan for apportionment. Minor inconsistencies in square footage are explained and do not undermine the Plaintiffs entitlements. There is no evidence of any excess entitlement asserted by the Plaintiffs to the detriment of other beneficial owners. Therefore, the Plaintiffs claim is allowed with cost. Date: 3rd July 2026 SGD SHOBA DORAI RAJAH JUDICAL COMMISSIONER SHAH ALAM HIGH COURT Solicitor for the Plaintiff: SHAIK MOHD IMRAN [MESSRS FARAH A. ZABIR & PARTNERS (SHAH ALAM)] Solicitor for the Defendant 1: NUR SYAFINAZ HAYATI BINTI KAMARRUDIN [MESSRS PEJABAT PENASIHAT UNDANG-UNDANG NEGERI SELANGOR (SHAH ALAM)] Solicitor for the Defendant 2: DANIEL MAHADHEV A/L AROKIASAMY @ ISHWAR [MESSRS K S ONG & CO. (PETALING JAYA)]