Dayanthra Rao A/L Sannasy v 1. ) Ramaa Shri A/P Suberamaniam (BA-22NCvC-175-04/2024)

1.

DEV ANAND A/L SANNASY (No. K/P: 800428-08-5531) … DEFENDAN-DEFENDAN

On 29 July 2025, this Court heard and dismissed the Plaintiff’s Notice of Application dated 6 May 2025, filed under Enclosure 35, with costs of RM5,000.00.

The said Notice of Application sought an order for an interim injunction to restrain the First Defendant, her representatives, agents and/or related parties from: 01/10/2025 10:19:32

performing any transactions or dealings in respect of the Property;

moving, removing, selling and/or disposing of any assets located on the Property; and

making any overlapping claims in relation to the Property.

Dissatisfied with this Court’s decision, the Plaintiff has filed an appeal under Enclosure 61.

The following are this Court’s grounds of judgment in relation to the application and dismissal of Enclosure 35.

The central issue before this Court in Enclosure 35 was whether the Plaintiff had satisfied the requirements for the grant of an interim injunction.

It is not disputed that, at all material times, the First Defendant is the legal registered proprietor of the land which forms the subject matter of this suit.

The Plaintiff is the brother-in-law of the First Defendant. The Second Defendant is the Plaintiff’s brother and is also the husband of the First Defendant.

Although the First and Second Defendants are married to one another, the Second Defendant’s interest is aligned with that of the Plaintiff and in clear and unequivocal terms, the Second Defendant supported the Plaintiff’s application in Enclosure 35.

Neither the Plaintiff nor the Second Defendant holds any legal title or registered interest in the Property. Nevertheless, both seek to assert a beneficial claim to the Property by way of this legal action in the main suit.

The Plaintiff’s pleaded case is that he is the beneficial owner of a half share in the Property, on the basis that he made financial contributions toward its purchase, which were agreed upon jointly with the Defendants. The Plaintiff asserted that there exists a presumption that this half share is held by the First Defendant under a resulting trust for his benefit.

Alternatively, the Plaintiff pleaded that, given the agreement between him and the Defendants that the Property would be purchased through a public auction, and that he had contributed part of the purchase price, a fiduciary relationship was created between the Plaintiff and the Defendants. The Plaintiff further averred that he incurred additional expenses for the upkeep and repair of the Property, based on his alleged beneficial interest in it, which was known to both Defendants. On this basis, the Plaintiff contended that the First Defendant holds a half share of the Property under a constructive trust, for his benefit.

Other relevant background facts, as reflected in the Agreed Facts at Enclosure 28, are as follows:

Hartanah tersebut terperolehi apabila pada 31/03/2022, SHELL MALAYSIA BERHAD LIMITED (197602000010/992653-D) (“Penjual”) mengumumkan akan melaksanakan satu lelongan tertutup Hartanah tersebut yang mana salah satu syarat untuk menyertai lelongan itu adalah pembida-pembida yang berminat mestilah seorang pekerja / kakitangan penjual.

Defendan Pertama merupakan kakitangan dan pekerja Shell Malaysia Limited yang berkelayakan untuk menyertai dan membuat bidaan dalam lelongan bagi pembelian Hartanah tersebut.

Bidaan bagi Hartanah tersebut telah ditetapkan akan dilaksanakan secara talian dan dijalankan oleh Knight Frank Malaysia Sdn. Bhd. sebagai (“Jurulelong”) pada 24/05/2002. Harga Rezab (Reserved Price) yang telah ditetapkan adalah sebanyak RM1,900,000.00.

Defendan Pertama telah mendapatkan bantuan Defendan Ke-2 untuk melaksanakan dan menguruskan proses pembidaan dan pembelian Hartanah Tersebut.

Pada 10/05/2022, Defendan Ke-2 telah membuat bayaran pendahuluan sebanyak RM 3,000.00 kepada Jurulelong yang dilantik dan mendaftarkan nama Defendan Pertama untuk mengambil bahagian dalam proses lelongan.

Segala urusan pemindahan wang kepada Peguamcara Pembeli Tetuan TY Seke & Co sebagai pemegang pertaruhan untuk pembelian Hartanah Tersebut diamanahkan kepada Defendan Ke-2 dan Peguamcara Pembeli yang menguruskan transaksi secara menyeluruh terhadap Peguamcara Penjual Tetuan Azim, Tunku Farik & Wong.

Peguamcara Pembeli menulis dan memohon kepada Peguamcara Penjual untuk memasukkan nama-nama Plaintif dan Defendan Ke-2 ke dalam Perjanjian Jual Beli Hartanah tersebut sebagai pembeli-pembeli bersama namun permohonan tersebut telah ditolak kerana jualan hanya terbuka kepada kakitangan penjual.

Pada 28/10/2022, satu Perjanjian Jual Beli (“Perjanjian Jual Beli tersebut”) telah termeterai di antara Defendan Pertama dan Penjual dengan harga belian Hartanah tersebut sebanyak RM 2,310,000.00 sahaja (“Harga Belian Hartanah tersebut”).

Perjanjian Jual Beli tersebut telah ditandatangani di kediaman Defendan-Defendan di No. 39, Jalan SP 10/3, Saujana Puchong, 47110 Puchong, Selangor Darul Ehsan,

Baki Harga Belian Hartanah tersebut berjumlah RM 2,079,000 telah dimasukkan ke dalam akaun Peguamcara Pembeli pada 27/01/2023.

Peguamcara Pembeli telah menyerahkan baki sepenuhnya Harga Belian Hartanah tersebut kepada penjual melalui Peguamcara Penjual. Oleh kerana terdapat kelewatan dalam peyerahan wang baki tersebut, maka pihak Penjual telah mengenakan faedah bayaran lewat di atas kelewatan tersebut.

Peguamcara Pembeli membuat permohonan supaya dikecualikan daripada dikenakan caj faedah bayaran lewat namun ditolak. Faedah bayaran lewat dibuat dan diserahkan pada 10/03/2024 kepada Peguamcara Penjual bagi menyempurnakan pembayaran baki Harga Belian Hartanah tersebut.

Pindahmilik hak dan kepentingan ke atas nama Defendan Pertama di dalam Hartanah tersebut menurut Perjanjian Jual Beli tersebut telah disempurnakan pendaftarannya di Pejabat Tanah dan Galian Negeri Pahang pada 31/03/2024 menjadikan Defendan Pertama pemilik berdaftar Hartanah tersebut pada masa ini.

Surat Ikatan Amanah menunjukkan pembahagian pihak-pihak yang disediakan oleh Peguamcara Pembeli tidak ditandatangani oleh Defendan Pertama.

Defendan Pertama tidak membantah Hartanah tersebut dijadikan sebagai hartanah sewaan di bawah “Airbnb” bagi menampung kos untuk Hartanah tersebut.

Bagi melindungi hak kepentingan dan tuntutan ke atas Hartanah tersebut, Plaintif telah memohon kepada Pejabat Tanah dan Galian Negeri Pahang supaya satu kaveat persendirian dimasukkan ke atas Hartanah tersebut bagi melindungi kepentingan hak dan tuntutan Plaintif ke atas Hartanah tersebut.

Satu kaveat persendirian telah dimasukkan dan didaftarkan ke atas Hartanah tersebut oleh Plaintif di bawah Perserahan No. 939/2024 pada 05/03/2024 (“Kaveat Persendirian tersebut”) bagi memelihara status quo ke atas Hartanah tersebut.

The First Defendant has filed a Defence and Counterclaim against both the Plaintiff and the Second Defendant, asserting that they (the Plaintiff and the Second Defendant) had acted in concert, colluded and conspired to oppress and manipulate her (the First Defendant), with the effect of unlawfully depriving her of her legal and beneficial rights as the registered proprietor of the property and seeking for the appropriate declaratory reliefs alongside claims for damages.

The applicable legal principles governing the grant of interim injunctions are well-settled.

In reaching its decision to dismiss the application in Enclosure 35, this Court was guided by several material considerations.

The first relates to what this Court terms as prior related proceedings.

This Court took judicial notice of a prior action filed by the First Defendant in the Kuantan High Court, namely Originating Summons No: CA-24NCvC-28-01/2025 ("OS 28").

In OS 28, the First Defendant sought an order for summary possession of the Property from the Plaintiff and the Second Defendant, who were, and remain, in occupation and exercising full control over the Property.

More significantly, the Plaintiff himself had filed Originating Summons No: CA-24NCvC-112-06/2024 (“OS 112”) in the same court, seeking to extend the duration of a private caveat he had registered over the Property, pending disposal of the present suit. After hearing the parties and considering the affidavit evidence, Mohd Radzi bin Harun J dismissed OS 112 on 5 September 2024, holding that the Plaintiff had failed to demonstrate a caveatable interest in the Property. The learned judge held that the Plaintiff’s claim, at best, gave rise only to a right in personam, and not a right in rem. It is not disputed that the Plaintiff did not appeal against that decision.

This Court finds merit in the First Defendant’s submission that the present application for an interim injunction amounts to a veiled and circuitous attempt by the Plaintiff to obtain, by other means, what he had previously failed to secure through his caveat application in OS 112. In this regard, the decisions of the Court of Appeal in IB Capital Sdn Bhd v Ivory Sdn Bhd & Anor [2021] MLJU 1388; [2021] CLJU 2348; [2021] MLRAU 148; [2021] AMEJ 1159 and Koperasi Serbaguna Cuepacs Tanggungan Bhd v City Investment Sdn Bhd [1982] CLJ 428; [1982] 1 MLRH 83 provide persuasive authority in support of this Court’s finding.

The Court’s decision to dismiss the application in Enclosure 35 was further fortified by a second material consideration, namely, the delay in the filing of the said application. In Keet Gerald Francis Noel John v Mohd Noor @ Harun Abdullah & Ors [1995] 1 MLJ 193; [1995] 1 CLJ 293; [1995] 1 AMR 373; [1994] MLRA 454, the Federal Court affirmed that a judge is entitled to take into account all relevant discretionary factors, including delay in bringing the application. (See also Alor Janggus Soon Seng Trading Sdn Bhd & Ors v Sey Hoe Sdn Bhd & Ors [1995] 1 MLJ 241; [1995] 1 AMR 549; [1995] 1 CLJ 461; [1995] 1 MLRA 10 and Khor Cheng Wah v Sungai Way Leasing Sdn Bhd [1996] 1

MLJ 223; [1996] 1 AMR 846; [1996] 2 MLRA 91; [1997] 1 CLJ )

For these reasons, the application in Enclosure 35 was dismissed. Dated: 01 October, 2025 sgd (CHOONG YEOW CHOY) JUDGE HIGH COURT OF MALAYA SHAH ALAM, SELANGOR Counsel: For the Plaintif : Norliah Binti Tahir Nur Muliatie Munira Binti Azizan (Messrs Dianna Noor & Partners) For the First Defendant : Cyndi Chow Li Kian Hang Qiu Min Richard Tie Sing Wang (Messrs Josephine L.K. Chow & Co.) For the Second Defendant : Hj. Abdul Hamid Menon Bin Abullah (Maniam) Ishvinderjeet Singh a/l Ranjit Singh (R.K. Menon & Co.)