Low Peck LIM v Low Peck Sang (BA-24NCvC-2395-12/2023)

LOW SOH BENG (P) …DEFENDAN-DEFENDAN JUDGMENT Introduction [1] The distinctiveness of this case stems from the fact that the six siblings concerned are not fighting over their shares in their late parents’ estate. Their shares and entitlement are not in dispute. The overriding disagreement relates to the question of whether the estate in the form of a piece land jointly owned by the six siblings ought to be disposed of or that they should continue to hold the said land as co-proprietors. [2] The Plaintiff has commenced this Originating Summons application seeking an order for the said land to be sold pursuant to section 145(2)(c) of the National Land Code and Order 31 of the Rules of Court 2012. Of the five Defendants, only three of the five Defendants are fervently contesting the application S/N jUhz4Vc6w0S6p89pArJe0Q The Prevailing Issue [3] The central issue in this Originating Summons is whether this is a proper case for this Court to exercise its discretion to terminate the co-proprietorship pursuant to section 145(2)(c) of the National Land Code and direct that the said land be sold pursuant to Order 31 of the Rules of Court 2012. The Parties [4] The Plaintiff and the Defendants are siblings. [5] The Plaintiff and the First, Second and Third Defendants are brothers while the Fourth and Fifth Defendants are their sisters. [6] The ownership of the said land is as follows: Low Peck Lim (Plaintiff) – 19.44% Low Peck Sang (D1) – 19.44% Low Peck Chuan (D2) – 19.44% Low Peck Guan (D3) – 19.44% Low Say Wah (D4) – 11.11% Low Soh Beng (D5) – 11.11% S/N jUhz4Vc6w0S6p89pArJe0Q [7] The six siblings are aged between 63 and 73 years old. The Claims Before this Court [8] The reliefs sought by the Plaintiff in his Originating Summons in Enclosure 1 are as follows: a. Keseluruhan hartanah yang dipegang dibawah GRN 123148, Lot 57902, Mukim dan Daerah Klang (tanah tersebut) dan dimiliki oleh Plaintif dan D1 hingga D5 selaku pemilik bersama atau “co-proprietors” ditamatkan milikan bersama tanah tersebut (termination of co-proprietorship) dibawah Seksyen 145 Kanun Tanah Negara (KTN) dan juga tanah tersebut dijual dibawah Seksyen 31 Kaedah-Kaedah Mahkamah dan juga Seksyen 145 (2)(c) KTN; b. Tanah tersebut setelah dijual dan hasil jualan setelah ditolak perbelanjaan yang sah termasuk komisyen jualan sebanyak 2% dibahagikan kepada kesemua pemilik bersama iaitu Plaintif dan Defendan Pertama hingga Defendan Kelima mengikut bahagian mereka masing-masing seperti ternyata dalam geran tanah tersebut; c. Tanah tersebut dijual melalui jualan swasta dengan harga RM27 juta atau harga jualan melebihi RM27 juta oleh Plaintif dan/atau mana-mana D1 hingga D5 dalam tempoh 60 hari daripada tarikh perintah disini diberikan, dan tempoh tersebut boleh dipanjangkan jika perlu, dengan persetujuan semua S/N jUhz4Vc6w0S6p89pArJe0Q pihak dan Plaintif serta D1 hingga D5 berhak melantik ejen hartanah untuk membanitu jualan swasta tersebut; d. D1 atau D2 dan/atau Pentadbir harta pusaka Ng Kwee Wah, Low Shirly atau sesiapa yang memegang geran asal hartanah tersebut dikehendaki menyerah hak milik asal geran tersebut kepada peguam Plaintif dalam tempoh 7 hari daripada perintah disini diberikan untuk tujuan menyediakan perjanjian jual beli tanah tersebut; e. Jika mana-mana pemilik bersama (D1 hingga D5) enggan menandatangani perjanjian jualan setelah tawaran RM27 juta atau lebih tinggi dan bayaran 10% deposit diterima, dan setelah diberi tempoh 7 hari, maka PKP dibenarkan menandatangani perjanjian jualan tersebut dan lain-lain semua dokumen bagi pihak pemilik bersama yang enggan menandatangani surat perjanjian dan dokumen berkenaan tersebut. f. Plaintif bebas membuat permohonan (kepada PKP atau Hakim) termasuk lanjutan tempoh jualan tanah dan menetap harga jualan yang baru jika perlu. g. Kos tindakan disini termasuk perbelanjaan menyediakan laporan penilai tanah ditanggung oleh D1 hingga D5, dan; S/N jUhz4Vc6w0S6p89pArJe0Q h. Apa-apa perintah dan relif yang lain yang dianggap sesuai dan patut oleh Mahkamah yang mulia ini. [9] The First, Second and Third Defendant have also filed Enclosure 30, seeking to strike out the Plaintiff’s Originating Summons. [10] This Court shall first deal with Enclosure 30. In the event that Enclosure 30 is dismissed, it shall then proceed to deal with Enclosure 1. [11] Enclosure 30 is made pursuant to Order 18 rule 19(1)(a), (b) and

(d), Order 18 rule 19(3) and/or Order 92 rule 4 of the Rules of Court 2012. The reliefs sought by the First, Second and Third Defendants are as follows:

Bahawa Saman Pemula bertarikh 4.12.2023 dan Afidavit Sokongan yang diikrarkan oleh Low Peck Lim bertarikh 1.12.2023 (“Afidavit Sokongan”) dibatalkan;

Kos dibayar oleh Plaintif kepada Defendan-Defendan. The Decision of this Court in Enclosure 30 [12] The First, Second and Third Defendants have advanced the following grounds in support of their application in Enclosure 30.

Secara ringkasnya, Saman Pemula Plaintif adalah untuk menamatkan pemilikan bersama hartanah pusaka keluarga iaitu, GRN 123148, Lot 57902, Mukim Klang & Daerah Klang (“Tanah Bukit Kemuning”) di bawah Seksyen 145(1) Kanun S/N jUhz4Vc6w0S6p89pArJe0Q Tanah Negara (“KTN”) dan menjual tanah tersebut. Tanah Bukit Kemuning dimiliki bersama oleh enam (6) adik-beradik iaitu Plaintif dan lima Defendan-Defendan;

Tuntutan Plaintif adalah remeh (frivolous) dan menyusahkan (vexatious) Defendan-Defendan kerana merupakan tuntutan yang tidak perlu dan berniat semata-mata untuk menggertak Defendan-Defendan untuk menjual Tanah Bukit Kemuning bagi kepentingannya sendiri;

Tuntutan Plaintif adalah mengaibkan (scandalous):

Plaintif, sebagai seorang peguam, bertindak mewakili dirinya sendiri dengan menggunakan firma guaman milikan tunggal beliau untuk memulakan tindakan terhadap adik-beradiknya. Ini adalah pelanggaran Kaedah-Kaedah Profesion Undang-Undang (Amalan dan Etiket) 1978 yang serius oleh Plaintif;

(ii) Apabila Mahkamah membangkitkan isu Defendan Keempat masih tidak diwakili, terdapat keadaan mencurigakan di mana bekas peguamcara Plaintif (yang mengendalikan pertikaian ini sebelum pemfailan tindakan ini) tiba-tiba mewakili Defendan Keempat;

(iii) Peguamcara Defendan Keempat juga memaklumkan Mahkamah bahawa Defendan Keempat tidak mempunyai bantahan terhadap permohonan Plaintif S/N jUhz4Vc6w0S6p89pArJe0Q tanpa pemfailan apaapa pliding dan tidak memfailkan hujahan;

(iv) Pengesahan Badan Peguam Malaysia kemudiannya mengesahkan peguamcara Defendan Keempat tidak layak bertindak sebagai peguamcara sejak 1 Januari 2024 kerana tidak mempunyai sijil annual dan practising certificate;

Plaintif juga mengeluarkan surat kepada penyewa Tanah Bukit Kemuning dan mendakwa beliau bertindak untuk dirinya sendiri dan juga mewakili Defendan Keempat, bertentangan dengan rekod Mahkamah;

(vi) Permohonan ini adalah dicemari oleh pelanggaran etika peguamcara dan hal-hal mencurigakan. Permohonan ini tidak seharusnya didengarkan oleh Mahkamah yang Mulia ini kerana ianya mengaibkan dan merupakan permohonan yang tidak telus di hadapan Mahkamah.

Tuntutan Plaintif merupakan penyalahgunaan proses Mahkamah.

Plaintif telah hadir ke Mahkamah yang Mulia ini dengan tidak suci hati dan gagal untuk mendedahkan fakta kes menyeluruh kepada Mahkamah; dan

(ii) Plaintif tidak patut dibenarkan berlindung di bawah peruntukan Seksyen 145(1) KTN untuk menggertak ahli S/N jUhz4Vc6w0S6p89pArJe0Q keluarganya untuk menjual keseluruhan tanah pusaka melalui pemfailan Saman Pemula. [13] The First, Second and Third Defendants have raised primarily two main grounds. The first relates to question of the termination of the co-proprietorship. [14] There are two arguments in respect of this first ground, one being that it has been “suggested to the Plaintiff to sell and/or apply for partition of his portion of the Bukit Kemuning Land” but the Plaintiff had refused and instead had “imposed unreasonable conditions for the sale of his portion on the Bukit Kemuning Land”. The other point raised by the First, Second and Third Defendants is that the Plaintiff has filed the present Originating Summons application with “the intention to coerce and/or threaten his siblings into selling the entire Bukit Kemuning Land without first considering a land partition application”. [15] The second ground relates to the question of ethical issues or alleged violations by the Plaintiff, who is an advocate and solicitor, and his counsel. [16] On the assertation by the First, Second and Third Defendants that the Plaintiff has filed the present Originating Summons application with “the intention to coerce and/or threaten his siblings into selling the entire Bukit Kemuning Land without first considering a land partition application”, this Court is of the considered view that there is nothing objectionable about the Plaintiff’s “intention”. That intention has been made plain in his Originating Summons. The Plaintiff is entitled to make an application to give effect to that intention. The only issue is whether this Court ought to S/N jUhz4Vc6w0S6p89pArJe0Q exercise its discretion to allow the reliefs sought by the Plaintiff. This question will be addressed when this Court considers Enclosure 1. [17] As for the ethical issues or alleged violations by the Plaintiff, who is an advocate and solicitor, and his counsel, this Court does not regard this ground as apposite for purposes of this striking out application. [18] While allegations that pertain to infractions of ethical conduct by advocate and solicitors warrant due and proper investigation and the necessary follow up actions, these claims, even if true, have no bearing on the present striking out application [19] This Court is unable to agree with the First, Second and Third Defendants that this Originating Summons is “unnecessary and/or irrelevant”. Nor is this Court able to agree with the First, Second and Third Defendants that this Originating Summons is frivolous, scandalous and/or an abuse of the process of the court. [20] The First, Second and Third Defendants’ application in Enclosure 30 lacks merit and is disallowed. The Decision of this Court in Enclosure 1 [21] The Plaintiff has listed the following grounds in support of his application in Enclosure 1. Alasan permohonan dalam Saman Pemula disini untuk menamatkan milikan bersama tanah keluarga dan menjual tanah tersebut seperti ternyata dalam Afidavit Sokongan Low Peck Lim S/N jUhz4Vc6w0S6p89pArJe0Q yang diikrarkan pada 01/12/2023 dan difailkan disini dan secara ringkas adalah seperti berikut:-

Plaintif dan ahli keluarganya iaitu D1 hingga D5 adalah pemilik bersama (co-proprietors) sekeping hartanah yang dipegang dibawah GRN 123148, Lot 57902, Mukim dan Daerah Klang, dan pemilik bersama atau co-proprietorship tanah tersebut.

Akibat perbezaan dan tiada kerjasama dan tiada kata sepakat tentang tanah tersebut, maka Plaintif mohon pemilikan bersama tanah tersebut ditamatkan dan perintah jualan diberikan dibawah Seksyen 145 Kanun Tanah Negara dan hasil jualan dibahagikan kepada semua pemilik bersama mengikut bahagian mereka seperti ternyata dalam geran tanah tersebut.

Kesemua ahli keluarga Plaintif bertindak tidak munasabah dimana mereka enggan menukar syarat hartanah tersebut kepada kategori ‘industrial’ untuk menaikkan nilai tanah tersebut.

D1 hingga D5 juga enggan memberi jawapan samaada mahu menerima surat tawaran daripada pembeli yang telah menawar harga pembelian sebanyak RM 26.2 juta. Kesemua Defendan juga enggan memberi jawapan atau pertimbangan tentang tawaran Plaintif untuk menjual bahagian beliau (7/36 bahagian) dalam tanah tersebut. S/N jUhz4Vc6w0S6p89pArJe0Q

Kesemua Defendan telah menyalahgunakan majoriti mereka untuk menindas dan menganiyai Plaintif dimana mereka enggan bekerjasama dan berbincang dengan Plaintif tentang masa depan tanah tersebut yang telah tertinggal liar dan kosong begitu sahaja dan tidak di majukan atau dibangunkan sejak 50 tahun yang lalu.

Kesemua Defendan telah berumur tua. Tetapi mereka masih enggan atau tidak mahu menyelesaikan isu tentang tanah tersebut yang telah lama tertangguh.

Plaintif mempunyai komitmen atau tanggungan sendiri dan Plaintif amat memerlukan hasil jualan hartanah tersebut untuk menjaga keluarga beliau dan untuk perkhidmatan kesihatan sendiri.

Maka, Plaintif tiada pilihan dan terpaksa memfailkan Saman Pemula disini untuk memelihara kepentingan beliau dan memohon remedi yang diperuntukkan dalam KTN dan juga Kaedah Mahkamah. [22] In considering the Plaintiff’s application in Enclosure 1, which to all intents and purposes, is for the termination of the co-proprietorship pursuant to section 145(2)(c) of the National Land Code and for an Order that the said land be sold pursuant to Order 31 of the Rules of Court 2012, this Court is mindful of the intents and wishes of the parties. [23] The demands of the First, Second and Third Defendants are not in doubt. S/N jUhz4Vc6w0S6p89pArJe0Q [24] Although named as a Defendant, the Fifth Defendant has no objection to the Plaintiff’s application, on condition valuation of the property concerned is carried out by an independent valuer. [25] As for the Fourth Defendant, this Court had directed that her stand be made known to the court but this Court was informed through a letter by the Plaintiff that due to her physical and mental condition, she will not be able to provide an affidavit or statutory declaration stating her position on this matter. The First, Second and Third Defendants refuted the Plaintiff’s claim relating to the Fourth Defendant’s mental condition but counsel for the Fifth Defendant did inform this Court that the Fifth Defendant had confirmed with her that her sister (the Fourth Defendant) is in no mental state of mind to affirm an affidavit. As a result, this Court instructed the First, Second, and Third Defendants to procure the said affidavit by 31 January, 2025. This Court was informed by the First, Second and Third Defendants that the First to Third Defendants' solicitors, Mr Khong Siong Sie and the daughter of the First Defendant, Ms Low Shir Ly, had paid a courtesy visit to the Fourth Defendant on 26 January, 2025, in the presence of the Fourth Defendant’s husband, Mr Tan Yen Aik and her son, Mr Tan Wee Boon. Having learnt of the Fourth Defendant's condition after the courtesy visit, the First to Third Defendants concur with the Plaintiff that the Fourth Defendant’s health deteriorated and she may not be in a position to affirm an affidavit to inform this Court of her wishes in relation to the joint ownership of Bukit Kemuning Land. [26] In considering whether a co-proprietorship should be terminated, the percentage of the undivided shares held by each of the co-proprietor is not a pertinent consideration. Hence, the view(s) of the majority S/N jUhz4Vc6w0S6p89pArJe0Q holder(s) of the undivided shares is not the determinant factor for the co-proprietorship to remain or be terminated. [27] Section 145 of the National Land Code provides as follows: Power of Court to facilitate termination of co-proprietorship

(1) Where, in the case of any land vested in co-proprietors —

any of the co-proprietors will neither join in, nor consent to the making of, an application for partition under this Chapter; or

by reason of the operation of paragraph 136(1)(f) (as applied by section 141), partition of the land between all of the co-proprietors is incapable of being approved under this Chapter, the Court, subject to and in accordance with the provisions of any law for the time being in force relating to civil procedure, may, on the application of any of the co-proprietors, make such order as it may think just for the purpose of enabling the co-proprietorship to be terminated.

Without prejudice to the generality of the power conferred by subsection (1), the Court may on any application under that subsection order — S/N jUhz4Vc6w0S6p89pArJe0Q

that, subject to the making between the co-proprietors of such payments as the Court may consider equitable having regard to the comparative values of the individual portions thereby proposed, any application for partition made by one or more of the co-proprietors in the terms specified in the order shall be deemed for the purposes of this Chapter to have been made by them all;

that the undivided share of any of the co-proprietors be transferred on the terms specified in the order to the other co-proprietors, or to any of them; or

that the land be sold. [28] In Ong Chin Hai & Anor v Ong Hoo See & Ors [2022] AMEJ 0844; [2022] 7 CLJ 852; [2022] 5 MLJ 690; [2022] 6 MLRA 515, the Court of Appeal held that it is not a prerequisite or precondition for a co-proprietor who wishes to terminate his co-proprietorship on a piece of land to show that he had applied for the land to be partitioned and that the application was rejected before the applicant could come to court. The Court of Appeal further pointed out that the court also has the power to direct a sale instead of partition pursuant to section 25 and paragraph 3 of the Schedule to the Courts of Judicature Act 1964. (On the invocation of section 145(2)(c) of the National Land Code, see also Kumaradevan Rajadevan v Jeevamalar Kumarasubramaniam [2024] AMEJ 0922; [2024] CLJU 887; [2024] MLJU 966.) S/N jUhz4Vc6w0S6p89pArJe0Q [29] Having considered the reasons put forward by the parties, particularly the Plaintiff on the one hand and the First, Second, and Third Defendant on the other, viability of the land being partitioned and the effect that the partitioning may have on the value of the land, this Court allows the main relief sought by the Plaintiff in paragraph (a) of Enclosure 1. [30] This Court further allows the consequential reliefs sought as per paragraph (b) to (f) of Enclosure 1. [31] Any of the parties to this action (either individually or collectively) shall have the right to exercise the option to purchase the said land provided that the price offered shall not be less than the amount as offered by any prospective purchaser. [32] The First, Second and Third Defendants are to pay costs of RM10,000 to the Plaintiff, subject to allocatur. [33] The costs incurred for the valuation of the land are to be borne equally by the Plaintiff, the First Defendant, the Second Defendant and the Third Defendant. Dated: 14 February, 2025 sgd [CHOONG YEOW CHOY] Judicial Commissioner High Court of Malaya Shah Alam S/N jUhz4Vc6w0S6p89pArJe0Q Counsel: Low Peck Lim (Plaintiff) – self represented Khong Siong Sie for the First, Second and Third Defendants (Messrs. Jason Teoh & Partners) Savithiri a/p S Ganesan for the Fifth Defendant (Messrs. Savi Ganesan & Co.) S/N jUhz4Vc6w0S6p89pArJe0Q