D Aman Crimson Management Corporation v Mainland Avenue Sdn Bhd (BA-22NCvC-345-08/2022)

CHONG MEE LEE (NO. K/P: 680118-01-6246)

PENGARAH TANAH DAN GALIAN NEGERI SELANGOR ...DEF. KEEMPAT

This dispute concerns the legal characterisation of certain areas within a mixed strata development undertaken by the Third Defendant, namely whether they constitute common property vested in the Plaintiff Management Corporation or whether they were lawfully designated and dealt with as accessory parcels. The Plaintiff, representing the parcel proprietors, contends that the areas in question form part of the common property and were wrongly alienated. The First, Second and Third Defendants dispute this contention and maintain that the relevant areas were validly created and transferred in accordance with the applicable statutory regime governing strata developments.

The parties framed the Issues to be Tried in the following terms.

Sama ada D3 secara bertentangan Akta Hak Milik Strata [Akta 318], Akta Bangunan dan Harta Bersama (Penyelenggaraan dan Pengurusan) 2007 dan Pelan Bangunan yang diluluskan MPPJ/PJB/BP8795/98 telah menyediakan Pelan Strata bagi mewujudkan petak-petak aksesori di bawah:- No.Kawasan TingkatPetak AksesoriKeluasan(m2)1.Bangunan M1 Tingkat 1(Sebelah lif)A114426m22.Bangunan MA Menara A Tingkat 21(Rooftop)A1154154m23.Bangunan M1 Menara B Tingkat 20(Rooftop)A1155154m24.Bangunan M1 Menara C Tingkat 20(Rooftop)A1156154m25.Bangunan M1 Menara D Tingkat 17(Rooftop)A1157154m2

Sama ada petak aksesori A1144, A1154, A1155, A1156 dan A1157 merupakan Harta Bersama mengikut peruntukkan Akta Hak Milik Strata [ACT 318], Akta Bangunan dan Harta Bersama (Penyelenggaraan dan Pengurusan) 2007 dan Pelan Bangunan yang diluluskan MPPJ/PJB/BP8795/98.

Sama ada D2 mempunyai kepentingan dalam syarikat D1 dan D3 dan/atau mempunyai kepentingan bersama dalam memindah milik petak aksesori A1144, A1154, A1155, A1156 dan A1157.

Sama ada penjualan petak aksesori A1144, A1154, A1155, A1156 dan A1157 dari D3 ke D2 dan seterusnya ke D1 antara lain bertentangan dengan:-

Seksyen 24(a), (b) dan/atau (e) Akta Kontrak 1950;

Seksyen 4,34(2), dan 69 Akta Hak Milik Strata 1985;

Seksyen 20, 22(3) dan/atau 22(4) Akta Perancang Bandar dan Desa 1976 [Akta 172]; dan

Seksyen 2 Akta Bangunan dan Harta Bersama (Penyelenggaraan dan Pengurusan) 2007

Sama ada hak milik bagi petak aksesori A1144, A1154, A1155, A1156 dan A1157 merupakan hak milik tak boleh disangkal "indefeasible" mengikut peruntukkan seksyen 340 Kanun Tanah Negara 1965 dan Akta Hak Milik Strata 1985.

Sama ada D1 perlu mengakaunkan kepada Plaintif dan membayar segala kutipan sewa sehingga kini dikutip oleh D1 bagi petak aksesori tersebut.

Sama ada D3 gagal untuk mewujudkan Joint Management Body "JMB" seperti yang diperuntukkan dalam Akta Bangunan dan Harta Bersama (Penyelenggaraan dan Pengurusan) 2007.

Sama ada D3 gagal untuk mengadakan Mesyuarat Tahunan Badan Pengurusan (Management Corporation) seperti yang di peruntukkan di bawah Seksyen 41(1) Akta 318.

Sama ada Pengarah atau ejen syarikat D1 dan D3 mewakili Jawatankuasa Pengurusan Plaintif "management committee" pada masa ke semasa yang menghalang Plaintif daripada mendapatkan Hakmilik terhadap Harta Bersama.

While those issues are numerous and encompass questions relating to the strata subdivision process, the validity of the impugned transfers, alleged conflicts of interest, the applicability of section 340 of the National Land Code, and certain management-related complaints, they ultimately converge upon a central question.

The primary issue for determination is whether the areas represented by accessory parcels A1144, A1154, A1155, A1156 and A1157 were lawfully created as accessory parcels pursuant to the strata subdivision process, or whether they remained, in law, part of the common property which vested in the Plaintiff upon the establishment of the Management Corporation.

The resolution of that issue necessarily requires this Court to consider the statutory framework governing strata developments, the legal effect of the approved and certified strata plans, the circumstances surrounding the subsequent transfers of the impugned parcels, and the application of the doctrine of indefeasibility of title.

If the Plaintiff succeeds in establishing that the impugned parcels were, in law, common property, the further questions concerning the validity of the transfers and the reliefs sought by the Plaintiff would arise for consideration. Conversely, if the First, Second and Third Defendants are correct that the impugned areas were validly constituted as accessory parcels, much of the Plaintiff's case would necessarily fall away.

It is against that backdrop that this Court must determine whether the Plaintiff has discharged the burden of proving that the impugned titles are liable to be set aside, or whether, as the First, Second and Third Defendants contend, the titles were lawfully created and transferred and therefore remain protected by law.

The factual chronology is largely undisputed. The development was completed in the early 2000s and the strata subdivision process was undertaken thereafter. The Plaintiff Management Corporation came into existence upon the opening of the strata register on 7 July 2009. By that time, however, the impugned accessory parcels had already been the subject of successive transactions and were ultimately registered in the name of the First Defendant.

Likewise, the following facts are not in dispute between the parties.

The Plaintiff, D'Aman Crimson Management Corporation, is the Management Corporation established in respect of the D'Aman Crimson Condominium development. The Plaintiff was certified by the Director of Lands and Mines, Selangor pursuant to section 39(2A) of the Strata Titles Act 1985 on 7 July 2009 and is a body corporate established under the Strata Titles Act 1985.

The First Defendant, Mainland Investment Holding Sdn Bhd, is a private limited company incorporated in Malaysia under the Companies Act 1965.

The Second Defendant, Chong Mee Lee, was a director of the Third Defendant at the material time.

The Third Defendant, Crimson Commercial Park Sdn Bhd, is a private limited company incorporated in Malaysia under the Companies Act 1965 and was the developer of D'Aman Crimson Condominium.

The Fourth Defendant, the Director of Lands and Mines, Selangor ("PTG Selangor"), is the public officer appointed pursuant to section 12 of the National Land Code and is responsible for matters relating to the registration of land ownership and interests in land.

A Certificate of Fitness for Occupation in respect of D'Aman Crimson Condominium was issued by the Majlis Bandaraya Petaling Jaya sometime in or around 2001. As the developer of the project, the Third Defendant was required by law to apply for the issuance of strata titles for the development.

The Plaintiff Management Corporation came into existence on 7 July 2009 upon the opening of the Book of Strata Register, and the Plaintiff's first Annual General Meeting was subsequently held on 28 September 2013.

The following cause papers were filed before this Court and were referred to during the trial and in the parties' written and oral submissions:

Amended Writ of Summons (Enclosure 4);

Re-Amended Statement of Claim (Enclosure 45);

Fourth Defendant's Defence (Enclosure 11);

First to Third Defendants' Defence and Counterclaim (Enclosure 12);

Plaintiff's Reply to Defence and Defence to Counterclaim of the First to Third Defendants (Enclosure 14);

Plaintiff's Reply to the Fourth Defendant's Defence (Enclosure 15);

Agreed Facts (Enclosure 24);

Issues to be Tried (Enclosure 25);

Expert Affidavit pursuant to Order 40A of the Rules of Court 2012 affirmed by Licensed Surveyor, Sr. Sivanesan a/l Subramaniam (Enclosure 29/Bundle "G");

Joint Bundle of Documents - Part A (Enclosure 22/ Bundle "B");

Joint Bundle of Documents - Part B (Enclosure 23/ Bundle "C");

Joint Bundle of Documents - Part B, Volume 1 (Enclosure 27/Bundle "D");

Additional Bundle of Documents (Plaintiff) (Enclosure 30/ Bundle "E");

Additional Bundle of Documents (First to Third Defendants) (Enclosure 37/Bundle "F");

Plaintiff's Bundle of Documents (Enclosure 42/Bundle "H");

Additional Bundle of Documents (First to Third Defendants) (Enclosure 43/Bundle "I");

Additional Bundle of Documents (Plaintiff) (Enclosure 44/ Bundle "J"); and

Notes of Proceedings (Enclosure 50).

In total, six witnesses testified during the trial.

The Plaintiff called three witnesses, namely Sr. Sivanesan a/I Subramaniam, a Licensed Surveyor (PW1); Tew Swee Kiam, Chairman of the Plaintiff Management Committee for the period 2022-2023 (PW2); and Ang Kok Hooi, Chairman of the Plaintiff Management Committee for the period 2013-2014 (PW3).

The First to Third Defendants called two witnesses, namely Chin Wing Wah (DW1); and Teh Ming Chung, a Licensed Surveyor engaged by the Third Defendant in relation to the preparation and submission of strata plans (DW2).

The Fourth Defendant called one witness, namely Aziz bin Haron (DW3), an officer from the Selangor Land and Mines Office.

The Plaintiff, as the Management Corporation of D'Aman Crimson Apartment and incorporated on 7 July 2009 pursuant to the Strata Titles Act 1985, contended that it is the lawful statutory body entrusted with the control, management and ownership of the common property of the development.

The Plaintiff's case is founded on the assertion that the Third Defendant has unlawfully converted areas which ought properly to form part of the common property of the development into "accessory parcels" attached to parcel 33. These accessory parcels, namely A1144, A1154, A1155, A1156 and A1157, are said to be located at rooftop level and areas which, according to the Plaintiff, are inherently part of the common property under the approved building plans and applicable statutory regime.

The Plaintiff averred that although the Certificate of Fitness (or Certificate of Completion and Compliance) for the development was issued around 2001, the developer, the Third Defendant, was under a statutory obligation to apply for strata titles in accordance with the approved building plans and the Development Order issued by the local authority, Majlis Bandaraya Petaling Jaya.

It is the Plaintiff's position that the Third Defendant wrongfully prepared and submitted strata plans which designated the said rooftop and structural areas as accessory parcels, contrary to the approved building plans and in breach of the Strata Titles Act 1985, the Town and Country Planning Act 1976, and the Building and Common Property (Maintenance and Management) Act 2007. The Plaintiff maintained that these areas ought to have remained vested as common property upon the establishment of the Management Corporation.

The Plaintiff further alleged that the Third Defendant subsequently transferred the said accessory parcels to the Second Defendant pursuant to a Sale and Purchase Agreement dated 31 May 2004 for RM613,050.00, and thereafter to the First Defendant pursuant to a further Sale and Purchase Agreement dated 8 May 2008 for RM650,000.00. The transfer of title was eventually registered at the Land Office on 26 November 2009, allegedly without the knowledge or consent of the Plaintiff.

It was further alleged that the Second Defendant had a corporate or beneficial connection with both the First and Third Defendants, and that the transactions were not conducted at arm's length but were orchestrated between related parties. The Plaintiff therefore contended that the transfers were not bona fide and were tainted by conflict of interest.

The Plaintiff asserted that the entire chain of transactions contravened statutory provisions, including provisions of the Contracts Act 1950, the Strata Titles Act 1985, the Town and Country Planning Act 1976, and the relevant statutory framework governing common property. It was further alleged that the subdivision process was carried out during the "initial period" prior to the first Annual General Meeting of the Management Corporation, when the developer allegedly exercised dominant control over the management structure.

A further central allegation is that the purpose of the purported creation and transfer of the accessory parcels was to enable commercial exploitation, in particular the leasing of rooftop areas for telecommunication towers and related structures. The Plaintiff contended that such use is incompatible with the character of the development, which is residential in nature, and that rooftop areas are statutorily common property intended for the collective use and benefit of all parcel proprietors.

The Plaintiff also asserted that as a result of the Defendants' actions, residents of the development have suffered adverse consequences, including water leakage and interference affecting units situated beneath the rooftop areas. It was further alleged that the Plaintiff has been denied access to these areas on the basis that ownership has been transferred to the First Defendant.

In relation to the statutory authorities, the Plaintiff contended that the Fourth Defendant Land Administrator failed to exercise proper care and diligence in approving the strata subdivision, in particular by accepting Form 1 and its supporting documents without adequately verifying compliance with the approved building plans and Development Order. It was further alleged that the subdivision process contravened sections 9 and 10 of the Strata Titles Act 1985, read together with section 22 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1976.

The Plaintiff further contended that the designation of the said areas as accessory parcels was premised on defective or insufficient instruments, and that the strata title issuance process was tainted by misrepresentation and non-compliance with statutory requirements. On that basis, it was alleged that the titles issued in respect of the accessory parcels are liable to be set aside under section 340(2) of the National Land Code 1965.

Accordingly, the Plaintiff seeks relief including declarations that the said accessory parcels form part of the common property, orders setting aside the transfers of the said parcels to the First Defendant, and consequential relief restoring ownership and control of the said areas to the Plaintiff Management Corporation.

In reply to the Defendants' Counterclaim, the Plaintiff contended that the counterclaim, which was only raised for the first time in the Defendants' Reply Submissions dated 8 May 2026, is premised entirely on bare assertions without any evidential foundation.

The Plaintiff argued that it is trite law that pleadings do not constitute evidence, and that the burden rests squarely on the First to Third Defendants to prove their counterclaim on a balance of probabilities through admissible and cogent evidence and that in the present case, the First to Third Defendants failed to adduce any documentary, oral, expert, or valuation evidence to substantiate the alleged loss, damage, or wrongdoing said to have been caused by the Plaintiff.

On the contrary, the Plaintiff submitted that the contemporaneous documentary evidence, in particular the minutes of its general meetings, correspondence with the relevant authorities, and complaints raised by parcel proprietors, demonstrate that the Plaintiff acted pursuant to complaints received and in the discharge of its statutory duties under the Strata Management Act 2013. The Plaintiff further pointed to the resolutions of its general meetings which, it argued, clearly show that the commencement of these proceedings was duly authorised.

The Plaintiff contended that the First to Third Defendants have failed to establish any actionable wrong, breach of statutory duty, recoverable loss, or causal connection between the Plaintiff's conduct and the alleged damage pleaded in the counterclaim. No financial records, expert reports, valuation evidence, or contemporaneous documents were produced in support thereof.

Accordingly, the Plaintiff submitted that the counterclaim is speculative, unsupported by evidence, and ought to be dismissed with costs.

The First to Third Defendants' case, taken as a whole, rests principally on the assertion that the Plaintiff has failed to establish any legal or factual basis for its claim that certain accessory parcels were unlawfully or improperly converted from common property.

The Third Defendant, being the original registered proprietor and developer of the development, contended that it held indefeasible title to the development land pursuant to section 340 of the National Land Code, and that all dealings with the land were carried out in accordance with the statutory regime governing strata developments under the Strata Titles Act 1985 and the National Land Code.

It is further the Defendants' position that upon the opening of the strata register on 7 July 2009, the common property vested in the Plaintiff Management Corporation by operation of law. However, the accessory parcels in question, being those attached to Parcel 33, did not form part of the common property. Instead, they were constituted as separate proprietary interests capable of being dealt with and transferred.

The Defendants emphasised that prior to the formation of the Plaintiff, Parcel 33 together with the accessory parcels had already been sold by the Third Defendant to the Second Defendant in 2004, and subsequently by the Second Defendant to the First Defendant in 2008. Accordingly, at the material time of the Plaintiff's incorporation, the said accessory parcels were already the subject of completed proprietary transactions, and could not retrospectively be characterised as common property.

Central to the First to Third Defendants' case is the principle of indefeasibility of title under section 340 of the National Land Code. It was submitted that each registered proprietor in the chain of title, namely the Third Defendant, the Second Defendant and the First Defendant, acquired indefeasible title upon registration, and that no evidence has been adduced to bring the case within any of the statutory exceptions under section 340(2), such as fraud, misrepresentation, forgery or illegality. In the absence of such proof, the statutory presumption of indefeasibility remains intact.

The First to Third Defendants further relied on statutory interpretation of the Strata Titles Act 1985, contending that "common property" is defined by exclusion and does not extend to areas lawfully designated as accessory parcels in a duly certified strata plan. Reliance was placed on authority to the effect that once an area is identified as an accessory parcel in the certified strata plan, it cannot in law metamorphose into common property.

On the factual matrix, the First to Third Defendants maintained that the subdivision and strata application process was carried out in accordance with statutory requirements. The licensed surveyor (DW2) testified that the strata plans were prepared in conformity with the approved building plans and were duly endorsed by the relevant authorities.

The endorsement of "TERATUR" by the Department of Survey and Mapping (JUPEM) was relied upon as confirmation that the plans were in order at the material time.

DW3 from the Land Office further testified that applications for subdivision are subject to administrative scrutiny and verification by JUPEM, including comparison with approved building plans and physical site inspection. It was their evidence that no irregularity or objection was raised during the approval process.

The First to Third Defendants also emphasised that the Plaintiff failed to call material witnesses from the approving authorities, in particular JUPEM and the Majlis Bandaraya Petaling Jaya, to challenge the certification process or to demonstrate any alleged non-compliance. It was contended that this omission is significant, given that the Plaintiff's case hinges upon an assertion that the certified strata plans were inconsistent with approved building plans.

In relation to allegations of fraud, misrepresentation, conflict of interest and mala fides, the First to Third Defendants deny any wrongdoing. It was submitted that the allegations are speculative and unsupported by evidence. The Defendants further pointed out that any alleged relationships between the parties occurred after the relevant transactions had already been completed, and therefore could not have affected the validity of those transactions.

The Defendants further contended that the Plaintiff's case is built largely upon earlier or superseded building plans from the late 1990s, rather than the final approved or "as-built" plans used at the time of subdivision. In contrast, DW2's evidence was that subdivision was undertaken based on the final plans in existence at the material time, and that the approval of the relevant authorities necessarily presupposes compliance with the governing requirements.

It was also submitted that ancillary complaints raised by the Plaintiff concerning management issues of the development, including alleged delays in convening meetings and operational matters of the Management Corporation, are irrelevant to the central issue of title and classification of accessory parcels.

Reliance was further placed on a recent decision of the High Court involving the same development and substantially similar issues, wherein the Plaintiff's claim was dismissed. The First to Third Defendants submitted that the reasoning in that case is highly persuasive, given the commonality of parties, subject matter, documentary evidence and legal issues.

In conclusion, the Defendants maintained that the Plaintiff has failed to discharge its burden of proof on a balance of probabilities. The Defendants therefore submitted that the claim ought to be dismissed with costs, and that judgment be entered in favour of the Defendants on their counterclaim.

The Fourth Defendant, the Director of Lands and Mines, Selangor, contended that the application for subdivision of the building (Borang 1 under the Strata Titles Act 1985) was submitted by the Third Defendant, Crimson Commercial Park Sdn Bhd, on 17 July 2008 and was approved on 25 November 2008.

It was further contended that the Strata Register Book No.3973 was opened on 7 July 2009, and the Plaintiff Management Corporation was subsequently registered on 20 July 2009. Thereafter, on 15 July 2010, a transfer was registered from Crimson Commercial Park Sdn Bhd to the First Defendant, Mainland Avenue Sdn Bhd.

The Fourth Defendant maintained that it had merely processed and issued the strata titles based on the information and documentation furnished by the developer, Crimson Commercial Park Sdn Bhd, and that all actions were undertaken in good faith in the performance of its administrative functions.

It was further contended that the Fourth Defendant is a nominal party to the proceedings and is prepared to abide by any orders of the Court, provided such orders are consistent with the Strata Titles Act 1985 and the National Land Code.

The parties referred extensively to statutory provisions and judicial authorities in support of their respective positions, both to advance their claims and to answer the opposing case. The Court has considered the relevant legislative framework and authorities cited, which primarily concern the law governing strata development, the classification of common property, the validity of strata subdivision, and the doctrine of indefeasibility of title.

On the part of the Plaintiff, reliance was placed principally on the Strata Titles Act 1985, the National Land Code, the Town and Country Planning Act 1976, the Contracts Act 1950, and the Building and Common Property (Maintenance and Management) Act 2007, together with judicial authorities that include Ideal Advantage Sdn Bhd v Perbadanan Pengurusan Palm Spring @ Damansara [2020] 4 MLJ 93, [2019] 5 AMR 201, [2019] 1 LNS 894, [2019] 6 MLRA 721 and Malaysian Land Properties Sdn Bhd v Waldorf and Windsor Joint Management Body [2014] 3 MLJ 467; [2014] 6 CLJ 821, [2014] 3 MLRA 396, [2014] 3 AMR 591.

On the part of the First to Third Defendants, the provisions relied upon and authorities cited include both statutory provisions and principles relating to indefeasibility of title and evidential conclusiveness under the National Land Code and the Strata Titles Act 1985.

In particular, reliance was placed on section 16(6) of the Strata Titles Act 1985, which provides that sections 89 to 91 of the National Land Code shall apply to documents of strata title as they apply to documents of final title, subject to the proviso concerning parcels under charge or lien.

Further reliance was placed on section 89 of the National Land Code, which provides that every register document of title is conclusive evidence that title to the land is vested in the registered proprietor and of the conditions and restrictions to which the land is subject.

Section 396(2) of the National Land Code was also relied upon, which provides that an approved survey plan filed with the Director of Survey and Mapping shall be conclusive evidence of the boundaries, boundary marks, area, and lot number of the land to which it relates.

The First to Third Defendants further relied on the statutory definition of "common property" under section 4 of the Strata Titles Act 1985, which defines common property as so much of the lot as is not comprised in any parcel (including any accessory parcel) or provisional block as shown in an approved strata plan.

It was submitted that, for the purpose of determining the applicable legal regime, reference must be made to the Strata Titles Act 1985 in its pre-amendment form applicable prior to the amendments introduced by Act A1450 of 2015, as well as prior to the introduction of the Building and Common Property (Maintenance and Management) Act 2007 and the Strata Management Act 2013, both of which were contended to have no retrospective application to the present development.

In this regard, reliance was placed on authorities that include Badan Pengurusan Bersama Paradesa Rustika v Sri Damansara Sdn Bhd [2014] 1 MLJ 14; [2014] 1 MLRA 83; [2013] 9 CLJ 813; [2013] 6 AMR 517, Perantara Properties Sdn Bhd v JMC-Kelana Square and another Appeal [2016] 1 LNS 139; [2016] MLJU 1598; [2016] 7 MLRA 637 and Target Term Sdn Bhd v Waldorf and Windsor Management Corporation & Another Appeal [2025] 2 CLJ 386; [2024] 6 MLJ 598; [2025] 2 MLRA 67; [2024] 8 AMR 577.

It was further submitted that the definition of "common property" under section 2 of the Building and Common Property (Maintenance and Management) Act 2007 is materially wider in scope, but that the said Act does not operate retrospectively, and therefore cannot govern developments completed prior to its enactment.

Reference was also made to the Strata Management (Maintenance and Management) Regulations 2015, Third Schedule, By-Law 8(3), which imposes obligations on proprietors to permit access to parcels for purposes including investigation of building defects and maintenance or repair of common property and building services.

On the Plaintiff's reliance on section 340(2) of the National Land Code, the First to Third Defendants submitted that the pleadings failed to particularise the specific limb of section 340(2) relied upon, and that such omission is contrary to the requirements of Order 18 rule 12 of the Rules of Court 2012.

Finally, reference was made to the decision in D'Aman Crimson Management Corporation v Simplex Equity Sdn Bhd & Crimson Commercial Park Sdn Bhd [2026] MLRHU 709; [2026] AMEJ 0836; [2026] CLJU 819; [2026] MLJU 1015 wherein the Plaintiff's claim in relation to substantially similar subject matter was dismissed at first instance. The First to Third Defendants submitted that certain findings of the High Court therein are of persuasive relevance to the present proceedings, notwithstanding that an appeal has been filed.

As for the Fourth Defendant, reliance was placed on sections 22,89 to 91,and 301 to 303 of the National Land Code, as well as sections 10,12,15 and 16 of the Strata Titles Act 1985, which govern the statutory framework for applications for subdivision, registration of titles, and the administrative role of the land authority in the issuance of strata titles.

The Fourth Defendant further relied on the decisions in Pendaftar Hakmilik, Pejabat Tanah dan Galian Negeri Selangor v Bank Pertanian Malaysia Bhd [2016] 3 CLJ 851; [2016] 3 MLRA 296; [2016] MLJU 15; [2016] AMEJ 1021 and Leelawathy Ratnam & Ors v Pengarah Tanah dan Galian Negeri Selangor & Anor [2010] 1 LNS 1185; [2010] 10 MLRH 189; [2010] AMEJ 0351, in support of the proposition that the Land Administrator acts in a statutory and administrative capacity, and that registration of dealings is premised upon compliance with the statutory requirements and the documentation submitted by the relevant parties.

At its core, this case involves a familiar but legally complex tension in strata development: the finality and protection of registered title under the Torrens system on the one hand, and the statutory and physical framework governing "common property" under the Strata Titles Act 1985 on the other.

The Plaintiff's case is that the First to Third Defendants unlawfully carved out and treated as private property areas which, according to the Approved Building Plan and statutory scheme, ought to have remained as common property. The First to Third Defendants' case, on the other hand, is that the disputed parcels were lawfully created, duly certified by the relevant authorities, and subsequently registered, thereby attracting the protection of indefeasibility of title.

The dispute therefore turns not merely on the description or location of the parcels, but on the basis upon which they were created at the stage of subdivision, and whether there was compliance with the statutory requirements and the Approved Building Plan.

This Court begins with the Approved Building Plan, which is part of the agreed documentary evidence in Part A of the Common Bundle. It is not disputed that the plan identifies areas designated for common use, including access routes, rooftop facilities, service rooms, lift motor rooms, and utility spaces. These documents were not challenged as to authenticity or existence.

The Plaintiff's case is supported by the evidence of PW1, a licensed surveyor, who carried out a comparison between the Approved Building Plan, the strata plan, and the physical layout on site. PW1's evidence was that the disputed accessory parcels did not correspond with the Approved Building Plan and that certain areas shown as common facilities were instead reflected as private or accessory parcels in the strata plan. This Court accepts that PW1 was qualified to give such evidence, and his testimony was not materially displaced in crossexamination.

This Court also takes into account the evidence of DW1 and DW2. DW1 agreed that an amended plan existed in relation to certain car park arrangements; however, no amended building plan was produced in evidence to show any approved alteration relating to rooftop areas, service rooms, or other common facilities relevant to the disputed parcels. DW2 confirmed that the strata plan was prepared based on instructions from the developer, and not on any independent verification of compliance with the Approved Building Plan. DW2 also did not produce any amended approved building plan in support of the Defendant's position.

DW3, a witness from the relevant land authority, confirmed that the authority processes applications based on documents submitted by the applicant and does not itself independently verify compliance with the Approved Building Plan. This evidence is relevant in understanding the administrative process, but does not of itself resolve the issue of compliance with the statutory requirements.

In the light of the above, this Court notes that the Defendants have asserted the existence of an amended approved building plan which allegedly supports the creation of the disputed parcels. However, no such amended plan, approval document, or supporting endorsement was produced before the Court. This Court also notes that this assertion was not specifically pleaded in the Defence. In these circumstances, this Court is not in a position to place weight on the existence of such an amended plan.

The burden of proof lies on the party asserting the existence of a fact. In this regard, the Defendants bear the burden of establishing the existence of any amended approval or lawful variation to the Approved Building Plan. On the evidence before the Court, that burden has not been discharged.

This Court further observes that, on the Approved Building Plan, the areas from which the disputed parcels were derived appear to be designated as common property or service-related areas, including access routes and utility spaces. The Plaintiff's complaint is that these areas were subsequently treated as private or accessory parcels. This Court accepts that this is the essence of the dispute between the parties.

The statutory requirements under section 9(1)(h) of the Strata Titles Act 1985 require that each parcel must have adequate means of access not passing through another parcel and adequate internal communication not passing through common property. The Plaintiff's case is that parcels A1154 to A1157 are situated in a manner which engages this requirement. This Court accepts that this is an issue properly raised for consideration based on the approved plans and strata layout in evidence.

With regard to Accessory Parcel A1144, the Approved Building Plan describes the relevant area as a security or maintenance room. The Plaintiff's case is that it was later designated as an accessory parcel. This Court notes that no documentary evidence of an amended approval specifically addressing this change was produced before the Court.

The First to Third Defendants' reliance on registration and administrative endorsement by JUPEM and the Land Office is noted. However, this Court accepts the principle that registration is not, by itself, determinative of the underlying legality of the creation of a parcel where statutory compliance is in issue. The Court of Appeal decisions in Malaysia Land Properties Sdn Bhd v Waldorf & Windsor Joint Management Body and Ideal Advantage Sdn Bhd v Perbadanan Pengurusan Palm Spring @ Damansara & Anor were cited in support of this proposition. These authorities support the proposition that the Court is entitled to examine the underlying process leading to registration.

This Court has also given careful consideration to the decision in D'Aman Crimson Management Corporation v Simplex Equity Sdn Bhd & Crimson Commercial Park Sdn Bhd, a case involving the same development and substantially related subject matter. Whilst the Court has taken cognisance of the reasoning adopted therein, the said decision is presently pending appeal and is not binding upon this Court. More importantly, a court's task is not to replicate the conclusions reached in another case but to determine the dispute before it based on the evidence, pleadings, and submissions properly placed before it. Having undertaken that exercise, this Court is respectfully unable to agree that the present case should be decided in the same manner. The evidence adduced in these proceedings, viewed together with the applicable statutory framework and authorities relied upon by the parties, leads this Court to a different conclusion.

On the issue of bona fide purchaser status, this Court notes the existence of corporate and personal connections between the relevant parties as raised in evidence. This Court further notes the absence of detailed valuation evidence or fully documented negotiation records relating to the disputed parcels. However, this Court is mindful that the standard remains one of proof on the balance of probabilities, and findings in this regard are made on the totality of the evidence rather than inference alone.

On the issue of adverse inference, the Court does not draw any adverse inference against the Plaintiff for failure to call witnesses from the Majlis Bandaraya Petaling Jaya or JUPEM. The Approved Building Plan was already before the Court as agreed evidence. The Defendants, who asserted the existence of amended approvals, did not produce such documents or call relevant witnesses to substantiate that assertion. In those circumstances, this Court is not satisfied that section 114(g) of the Evidence Act 1950 is engaged against the Plaintiff.

Having considered all the evidence, this Court finds that the Defendants have not produced documentary proof of any amended approved building plan authorising the creation of the disputed accessory parcels. This Court further finds that the dispute turns on the interpretation and application of the Approved Building Plan and the statutory requirements under the Strata Titles Act 1985.

In the premises, and on the evidence available before the Court, this Court is satisfied that the Plaintiff has established its case on the balance of probabilities.

This Court accordingly allows the Plaintiff's claim and grants the declarations and consequential reliefs sought in the Amended Writ and Amended Statement of Claim.

As for the Counterclaim advanced by the First to Third Defendants, this Court finds that the same has not been proved on a balance of probabilities. The Defendants failed to adduce sufficient evidence to establish the essential elements of the Counterclaim, including proof of any actionable wrongdoing by the Plaintiff, any legally recoverable loss, or any causal connection between the Plaintiff's conduct and the losses alleged. Mere assertions in pleadings and submissions cannot substitute for evidence. Accordingly, the Counterclaim is dismissed

The Plaintiff is awarded costs of RM60,000.00 against the First to Third Defendants. 7 July 2026 (CHOONG YEOW CHOY) JUDGE HIGH COURT OF MALAYA SHAH ALAM, SELANGOR Counsels: Plaintiff Parma Chandravevah (Parma's Chamber) The $ 1^{\mathrm{st}} $ to $ 3^{\mathrm{rd}} $ Defendants: Patrick Samuel (The Law Office of Patrick Samuel) The 4th Defendant Namirah Hanum binti Mohamed Albaki (Senior Federal Counsel)