Mazian binti Md Sa'at v Anuar bin Mat Jan (JB-22NCvC-42-08/2025)

This is an application by the Defendant to strike out the Plaintiff’s claim (Writ and Statement of Claim) pursuant to Order 18 rule 19 of the Rules of Court 2012 because, inter alia, the Plaintiff’s claim discloses no reasonable cause of action and is scandalous, frivolous, and/or vexatious, which amounts to an abuse of the process of Court.

The Defendant has been the registered owner of the property held under title PM 153, Lot 11650, Mukim Chaah, District of Batu Pahat, Johor (‘the said land’) since 20.11.2013.

The Defendant purchased the said land from the Plaintiff through an individual named Sulaiman sometime in September 2013, during which the Defendant received a call from Sulaiman stating that he was looking for a cash buyer for a piece of land priced at RM 260,000.00. Sulaiman then expressed his intention to meet with the Defendant to discuss the land further.

The Defendant later met Sulaiman at the Kings Hotel Melaka, where Sulaiman showed the Defendant the original title deed of the said land. The Defendant then agreed to purchase the said land for RM 260,000.00, with payment to be made only after the transfer approval is obtained.

The said transfer approval was obtained via a letter of approval dated 4.11.2013. The Defendant thereafter paid Sulaiman the full purchase price of RM 260,000.00 by cash cheque, and Sulaiman handed over the original title deed of the said land to the Defendant.

On 8.11.2013, the Defendant and the Plaintiff, in the presence of Sulaiman and the Plaintiff’s mother, the second litigation representative in this action, signed Form 14A for the transfer of the said land before the Melaka Tengah Land Administrator.

The said Form 14A and the original title deed were subsequently submitted to the Batu Pahat District Land Office for registration of the transfer after stamp duty was paid. Shortly thereafter, the Defendant received the original land title wherein the Defendant had been registered as the owner of the said land.

The Plaintiff’s Writ and Statement of Claim against the Defendant are premised on the allegation that the transfer of the said land from the Plaintiff to the Defendant was induced by fraud, misrepresentation, and/or undue influence by the Defendant against the Plaintiff.

The principle for striking out of pleadings pursuant to Order 18 Rule 19 of the Rules of Court is well settled. It is applicable only in a plain and obvious case or where a claim is, on the face of it, obviously unsustainable. (cases: Sivarasa Rasiah & Ors v. Che Hamzah Che Ismail & Ors [2012] 1 CLJ 75, CA, Tan Wei Hong & Ors v. Malaysia Airlines Bhd & Other Appeals [2018] 9 CLJ 425, FC).

The Court allowed the Defendant’s application on the following grounds: - a) The Plaintiff has failed to plead with clarity and particularity any alleged inducement by fraud, misrepresentation, and/or undue influence by the Defendant against the Plaintiff, wherein no full or specific particulars have been pleaded in support of such allegations. b) The Plaintiff’s allegations are inconsistent with the contemporaneous documentary evidence, are inherently improbable, and plainly unsustainable. The said transaction and transfer are valid under the law and were conducted with the full knowledge and consent of the Plaintiff. The following undisputed facts demonstrate that the Plaintiff was fully aware of the transaction and acted voluntarily in the said transaction and transfer of the said land: - i) The Plaintiff handed over the original title deed of the said land to Sulaiman which was subsequently handed over to the Defendant upon the Defendant’s payment of the purchase price for the said land in the sum of RM 260,000.00. ii) The Plaintiff signed the application form for transfer approval letter addressed to her without raising any objection or disputing the existence of the application. iii) The Plaintiff handed vacant possession of the said land to the Defendant upon completion of the said transaction and transfer and only thereafter through this present action prays for vacant possession of the said land. iv) Both the Plaintiff and the Second Litigation Representative in this action attended the Melaka District Land Office to execute Form 14A through which the Plaintiff expressly acknowledged receipt of RM 260,000.00 as consideration for the sale of the said land. c) The following chronology below clearly demonstrates that the Plaintiff slept on her purported rights over the said land for approximately 12 years despite having full knowledge of the said transfer and the registration of the Defendant as the lawful owner, and as such, the doctrine of laches will apply: - i) The Plaintiff lodged the first police report concerning matters that occurred between the Plaintiff and Sulaiman and the registration of the said land in Defendant’s name as the owner approximately 12 years ago on 10.12.2013. On the same day, the Plaintiff lodged a caveat on the said land. ii) The Plaintiff took no action thereafter, but only on 9.1.2018, approximately 7 years later, lodged a second police report concerning the same matter while adding new facts that were not stated in the first report. iii) The first caveat lodged by the Plaintiff over the land expired on 10.12.2019, six years after its lodgement and the Plaintiff took no further action, including renewing the caveat. iv) On 13.5.2025, the Plaintiff’s first litigation representative lodged another caveat over the land, which was removed subsequently by this court due to no caveatable interest.

In the case of Tsen Kyun Tshin v Lee Tse Khiong [1998] 4 MLJ 319, the court, in essence, held that the filing of an action 7½ years after lodging the caveat is an inordinate and inexcusable delay. In Onn Yee Kien & Anor (as personal representatives of the estate of Ong Ku @ Hong Poe, deceased) v On Giin Chuang [2014] 1 MLJ 550, the Court of Appeal in essence held no person should be allowed to lodge a caveat over another person’s land and, thereafter, just sit back and do nothing to enforce any claim to the propriety right that he alleges he has in respect of the caveated land where that would not be fair to the landowner who, while the caveat exists, is prohibited from dealing with his land.

The reason given by the Plaintiff for the long delay in not taking any action was ignorance of the law. It is a settled rule of law that ignorance of the law is never a valid reason warranting acceptance by the Court. It is trite that ignorance of the law is no excuse, and it does not assist the Plaintiff’s predicament in any event. (case: Bioenergy Force Sdn Bhd v Santhira Segaran a/l Iynan & Anor [2025] MLJU 2833). d) The Plairitiff’s inordinate and unexplained delay has resulted in a serious evidential prejudice to the Defendant, as the following evidence necessary to establish certain facts can no longer be obtained: - i) Sulaiman has passed away. Sulaiman, who is a material witness to the said transaction, could have been called to the witness box to testify on the facts of the case, in particular, the dealings between Sulaiman and the Plaintiff which were not within the knowledge of the Defendant. ii) The Defendant would have been able to obtain the bank records evidencing the payment of RM 260,000.00 by cheque. iii) The application form for approval of the transfer of the said land could have been obtained from the Land Office to further strengthen the fact that the Plaintiff had knowledge and approved the transaction and transfer of the said land to the Defendant.

Premised on the foregoing, the transfer of the land is valid, and the Plaintiff’s case is obviously unsustainable and discloses no reasonable cause of action. The application (Enclosure 12) is allowed under Order 18 Rule 19 of the Rules of Court with costs. Dated 1st April 2026 t.t. KALYANA KUMAR A/L SOCKALINGAM JUDICIAL COMMISSIONER HIGH COURT OF MALAYA MUAR JOHORE DARUL TA’ZIM For the Plaintiff : Putera Bin Ab. Rahman with Muhamad Akmal Redza Bin Md Suhaimi Messrs Zufaidi & Associates For the Defendant : Nahdan Rengganathan Bin Abdullah with Ow Su Wan Messrs A. Rengganathan & Co.