Komala Naidu A/P Purushothaman v 1. ) Nilah A/P Sinnappan (WA-24NCvC-956-03/2025)

NILAH NAIDU A/P SINNAPPAN (NRIC No: 710419-10-5386)

KALAVATHINAIDU A/P PURUSHOTHAMAN (NRIC No: 690111-10-6248)

KANAGARAJ NAIDU A/L PURUSHOTHAMAN (NRIC No: 740611-14-5115) … DEFENDANTS

[1] On 3.6.2025 this Court dismissed the Plaintiff’s application to transfer Civil Suit No. WA-A52NCvC-856-10/2024 from the Sessions Court to the High Court. Having heard the submissions of all parties and having considered the affidavits filed, this Court finds that: 21/07/2025 13:15:42 WA-24NCvC-956-03/2025 Kand. 23

The Sessions Court has adequate jurisdiction to hear this matter under s65 and s66 of the Subordinate Courts Act 1948 (SCA);

(ii) The transfer of the case to the High Court would not serve the interests of justice – Order 57 Rule 1 Rules of Court 2012 (RoC);

(iii) The threshold assessment of the genuineness of the counterclaim was not fulfilled by the Plaintiff;

(iv) Procedural impropriety and delay on the part of the Plaintiffs;

Prejudice and judicial efficiency warrant the Sessions Court to continue adjudicating the case. [2] The Plaintiff has lodged an appeal against this Court’s decision. Background of the Case [3] On 9.10.2024 the 1st and 2nd Defendants filed an action against the Plaintiff in the Sessions Court for vacant possession of the property held under C04-10 Palm Court Condominium, Jalan Sultan Abdul Samad, Brickfields 50470 Kuala Lumpur. The 2nd Defendant is the lawful registered proprietor and/or owner of the property. They also claimed from the Plaintiff the sum of RM129,105.65 which was the rental for the property from 2019 to 2024. [4] The Plaintiff sought extensions of time and finally filed her Defence and Counterclaim on 31.12.2024. in the Plaintiff’s Counterclaim is a whole host of allegations, amongst them, fraud. [5] On 7.2.2025, the Defendants filed an application to strike out the Plainitff’s Defence and Counterclaim. This was simultaneous with their filing of Reply to the Plaintiff’s Defence and their Defence to the Plaintiff’s Counterclaim. [6] On 3.3.2025 the Plaintiff filed this application to transfer the case to the High Court. The Plaintiff’s counsel in her oral submissions before this Court reasoned that the transfer was required because this was a family and a probate matter. She had also argued that the Counterclaim seeking RM1,000,000 against each Defendant was beyond the Sessions Court’s jurisidiction. [7] The Defendants objected to the transfer application pointing out that the case is not a probate matter but one claiming vacant possession and rental owing. The property is under the name of the 2nd Defendant. They were seeking for vacant possession of the same. [8] The counsel for the 1st and 2nd Defendants highlighted that there was a delay on the part of the Plaintiff that showed the transfer application was not bona fide. First of all, the time of 3 months for the filing of the Plaintiff’s Defence and Counterclaim was granted to her. That, according to the Defendants had allowed to crystalize her afterthought of claiming a sum of RM1,000,000 from each of the Defendants without particulars. Then, her filing of this transfer application which was only filed after the Defendants sought to strike out the Plaintiff’s Defence and Counterclaim at the Sessions Court, was a deliberate calculation to delay the prompt resolution of the latter at the Sessions Court. [9] The 1st and 2nd Defendant contended that the Plaintiff’s action to transfer the case to the High Court was a delay tactic to frustrate the Defendant’s case at the Sessions Court and to prejudice them as they have to incur higher legal costs at the High Court. It was submitted that this transfer application had resulted in unnecessary legal costs and prolonged or undue delay in the resolution of the matter during which the Plaintiff conveniently continued the rental collection of the property which rightly belongs to the 2nd Defendant. [10] Furthermore, the 3rd Defendant was not named as a beneficiary of their late father’s last will (the Plaintiff, the 2nd and 3rd Defendant are siblings whilst the 1st Defendant is their mother). The 3rd Defendant was never the owner of the property at any point in time. [11] The 3rd Defendants submitted that the transfer application by the Plaintiff was tantamount to an abuse of court process as the Counterclaim was not based on any document. The 3rd Defendant was not involved in any disputes or disagreements between the Plaintiff and the 1st and 2nd Defendants. The 3rd Defendant had also pleaded and submitted that whatever claims the Plaintiff had (which he denied) were time-barred. Furthermore, the alleged fraud was not particularized in the Plaintiff’s Counterclaim (see Nor Anita bt Abu Talib & Ors v Genesis Corp Pte Ltd & Ors [2022] MLJU 1388, Rokiah bt Suhaili v Emly Batu ak Bagang & Ors [2014] 7 MLJ 452). Thus, the 3rd Defendant contended that dragging him into the legal dispute was an afterthought on the part of the Plaintiff. Reasons for Dismissing the Plaintiff’s Application

The Sessions Court has Adequate Jurisdiction [12] Contrary to the Plaintiff’s oral assertion at the hearing of this application, the case is not a probate matter. The case against her at the Sessions Court is for vacant possession of the property and rental owing. The statutory framework as encapsulated in s65(1)(b) SCA provides that the Sessions Court have: “jurisdiction to try all other actions and suits of a civil nature where the amount in dispute or the value of the subject-matter does not exceed one million ringgit.” [13] Jurisdiction on counterclaims is addressed in s66(1) SCA that expressly provides: “Where in any action or suit of a civil nature before a Sessions Court any defence or counterclaim of the defendant involves matters beyond the jurisdiction of the Court, the defence or matter shall not affect the competence or the duty of the Sessions Court to dispose of the whole matter in controversy, so far as relates to the demand of the plaintiff and any defence thereto, but no relief exceeding that which the Court has jurisdiction to award shall be given to the defendant upon the counterclaim.’ [14] The Sessions Court remains competent to hear the entire matter, with the limitation that no relief exceeding its jurisdictional limits shall be awarded on the Plaintiff’s counterclaim. See Ng Kong Ling & Anor v Low Peck Lim & Ors [2017] 5 CLJ 651. The order to transfer the case to the High Court is within the discretion of the High Court. The legal provision of s66(2) SCA states: “In any such case the High Court may, if it thinks fit, on the application of any party, order that the action or suit be transferred to the High Court.” [15] The use of the word “may” indicates that this is a discretionary power, not a mandatory transfer. So, the transfer test under Order 57 Rule 1 RoC was considered by this Court.

Transfer test under Order 57 Rule 1 RoC [16] Order 57 Rule 1(1) RoC provides that a High Court Judge may order a transfer of a case only upon the satisfaction that the proceedings “can be more conveniently or fairly tried in some other Court of co-ordinate jurisdiction.” The Plaintiff had failed to demonstrate how the case would be more conveniently or fairly tried in the High Court. See Posc Ti Sdn Bhd v Kerajaan Negeri Terengganu & Anor [2015] CLJU 1416, Tan Tiang Huat & Anor v Lim Yee Hui & Anor [2024] 9 CLJ 141. [17] Order 57 Rule 1 RoC requires that before making any transfer order, the High Court “shall take into consideration whether the High Court or Subordinate Court which shall hear the case is located at or nearest to the place where”:

the cause of action arose. The rental dispute and possession claim arose in Kuala Lumpur, within the Sessions Court’s territorial jurisdiction;

the Defendant or one of the three Defendants resides or has his place of business. Here all the three Defendants reside in Kuala Lumpur;

the facts on which the proceedings are based exist or alleged to have occurred which in the case all material facts occurred in Kuala Lumpur;

the land the ownership of which is disputed is situated at Palm Court Condominium in Kuala Lumpur;

for other reasons it is desirable in the interests of justice that the proceedings should be transferred. The Plaintiff did not proffer any compelling reasons that exist favouring the transfer. [18] This Court concluded that all discretionary factors under Order 57 Rule 1(4) RoC pointed toward retention of jurisdiction of the Sessions Court.

Genuineness Threshold Assessment [19] As transfers are not automatic, the High Court is required to exercise its discretion in weighing such applications (s66(2) SCA). The High Court has the inherent jurisdiction to prevent abuse of process. If litigants could simply plead inflated claims to manufacture High Court jurisdiction, it would undermine the statutory scheme of court hierarchy. It would allow forum shopping through artificial claim construction. It would burden the High Court with matters properly within the Sessions Court's competence. [20] So, what the High Court can assess in a transfer application is whether the claim amount appears genuine for jurisdictional purposes. The High Court can assess whether there is some factual basis supporting the quantum claimed. The High Court can also assess whether the claim is artificially constructed to exceed the Sessions Court limits. [21] What the High Court cannot determine, which this Court did not do is to see whether the claim will ultimately succeed at trial, the accrual quantum of damages (if any), or whether the fraud alleged had actually occurred. [22] The Plaintiff’s Counterclaim seeks RM1,000,000 in damages against each of the Defendants. The fundamental principle established in Tan Sri Khoo Teck Puat & Anor v Plenitude Holdings Sdn Bhd [1994] 3 777 provides guidance: “plaintiffs must understand that if they bring actions for damages it is for them to prove their damage: it is not enough to write down the particulars, so to speak, throw them to the head of the Court, saying: ”This is what I have lost, I ask you to give me these damages.” They have to prove it.” [23] While this principle applies to substantive claims at trial, it also informs the threshold assessment for jurisdictional purposes – there must be some rational basis for the quantum claim, not merely arbitrary figures. [24] The case of Might Meteor Advanced Manufacturing Sdn Bhd v Mahasuria binti Idris & Ors [2018] MLJU 1274 establishes that: “Damages must be proved with real or factual evidence as opposed to mere particulars, summaries, estimations, or general conclusions.” [25] For transfer purposes, this requires some indication that the Plaintiff’s Counterclaim has a factual foundation that could justify the quantum claimed, without requiring full proof. This Court found that the Plaintiff’s RM1,000,000 claim against the Defendants was a round-figure sum without any particulars pleaded nor supporting documentation and lacked any factual basis or calculation methodology. Moreover, the Plaintiff’s Counterclaim was way disproportionate to the claim of the 1st and 2nd Defendants for the sum of RM129,195.65. This threshold assessment (not merits determination) raised serious concerns about whether the claim genuinely exceeds the Sessions Court's jurisdiction or is artificially constructed to manufacture transfer grounds.

Procedural Impropriety and Delay [26] The 1st and 2nd Defendants commenced their action at the Sessions Court on 9.10.2024. The Plaintiff filed her Defence and counterclaim (adding the 3rd Defendant) on 31.12.2024. Evidently, much time was given to the Plaintiff to file her Defence and mount the said Counterclaim against the 1st and 2nd Defendants and grab the 3rd Defendant into the legal tussle. Yet, she had not applied for a transfer then to show bona fide on her part. [27] She also did not seek a transfer when the 1st and 2nd Defendants filed their Defence to the Plaintiff’s Counterclaim on 7.2.2025. On the other hand, the 1st and 2nd Defendant filed simultaneously their application to strike out the Plaintiff’s pleadings. [28] The Plaintiff had only filed the transfer application on 3.3.2025, nearly 3 months after the filing of her Defence and counterclaim. With no explanation as to why she had filed the transfer application so belatedly, this Court can only conclude that the delay and procedural impropriety were deliberate on her part.

Prejudice and Judicial Efficiency [29] This Court mindfully accepted the submissions by the Defendants that they faced a delay in obtaining vacant possession of the property and recovering the outstanding rental arrears of RM129,105.45. Undoubtedly, there has been an increase in legal costs and procedural uncertainty. [30] As submitted by the 3rd Defendant, permitting the transfer would have resulted the High Court having to adjudicate matters that fall squarely within the Sessions Court competence, thereby mislocating judicial resources. [31] In any event, should the Plaintiff successfully prove at trial her claim for RM1,000,000 against each Defendant at trial, the Sessions Court can award accordingly. The Plaintiff’s Counterclaim fell squarely within the jurisdiction of the Sessions Court against each respective Defendant (s66(1)(b) SCA). This Court’s Order [32] In dismissing the Plaintiff’s application, she was ordered to pay costs of RM7,000 forthwith. The order for transfer to the High Court was not allowed so the case at the Sessions Court was instructed to proceed immediately. DATED 17 JULY 2025 ROZ MAWAR ROZAIN JUDGE HIGH COURT OF MALAYA KUALA LUMPUR For the Plaintiff: S Santhi T/n S. San & Co. For the 1st & 2nd Defendants: Amsa Damodaran Naidu T/n Mutalib, Wan & Co. For the 3rd Defendant: Sharon Juliat a/p Selvanathan T/n Rajes Hisham Rahim & Gopal