Md. Taha Bin Falehruji v 1. ) Pembangunan Tanah dan Perumahan Sdn. Bhd (JA-22NCvC-12-02/2019)

PEMBANGUNAN TANAH DAN PERUMAHAN SDN. BHD.

Q DEVELOPMENT SDN BHD ... DEFENDAN-DEFENDAN DAN MALAYAN BANKING BERHAD ...PENCELAH DICADANGKAN GROUNDS OF JUDGMENT [Enclosure 46] Brief background [1] As a brief background, via a sale and purchase agreement entered into in 1967 (“1st Agreement”), the 1st Defendant agreed to sell and the 19/09/2022 09:31:46 JA-22NCvC-12-02/2019 Kand. 70 __________________________________________________________________________________________ 2 Plaintiff agreed to purchase a piece of land known as P/Lot 553 (“the Land”) which then was a part of the property (“Property”) held under a master title known as No. Certificate of Title No. 17421, Lot 4648, Mukim Plentong, Daerah Johor Bahru (“Master Title”). [2] The Plaintiff alleged that at the material time, the 1st Defendant had made a representation that it was the developer who would develop the Property to be a housing project known as Ranchangan Tanah Perumahan Saujana (“Taman Saujana”). The Plaintiff also claimed that he had fully paid the purchase price for the Land to Messrs Goh Bin Lay & Co (advocates and solicitors acted on behalf of the 1st Defendant then). [3] In 2000s, the Property was subdivided into small pieces of land and the Land which was purchased by the Plaintiff was registered as GRN 316032, Lot 29115, Mukim Plentong, Daerah Johor Bahru. However, the separate individual titles were not issued for reasons best known to the 1st Defendant. [4] As the purchase price had been fully paid, the Plaintiff had constructed a house on the Land in 1970s and had been staying thereon since then. The Plaintiff also from time to time paid the quit rent and other utility bills imposed on the Land. [5] Based on these facts, on 4.2.2019, the Plaintiff filed this suit seeking for the following orders, inter alia:

(a) satu pengisytiharan bahawa Defendan Pertama memegang Hartanah tersebut sebagai pemegang amanah bagi Plaintif; __________________________________________________________________________________________ 3

(b) Suatu perintah bahawa Defendan Pertama menyerahkan kepada peguam Plaintif hakmilik asal Hartanah tersebut, Borang 14A Kanun Tanah Negara 1965 dan Borang PDS 15 serta segala dokumen pindahmilik yang telah ditandatangani oleh Defendan Pertama bagi memindah milik Hakmilik tersebut kepada Plaintif dalam masa 14 hari dari tarikh perintah diberikan;

(c) suatu perintah bahawa sekiranya Defendan Pertama gagal untuk menyempurnakan Borang 14A Kanun Tanah Negara, 1965 dan Borang PDS 15 serta segala dokumen Pindahmilik bagi Hakmilik tersebut, maka Penolong Kanan Pendaftar Mahkamah dan/atau Pendaftar ini diberi kuasa untuk menyempurnakan Borang 14A Kanun Tanah Negara, 1965 dan Borang PDS 15 serta segala dokumen Pindahmilik bagi memindahmilikan Hakmilik tersebut ke atas nama Plaintif;

(d) suatu perintah bahawa Pentadbir Tanah Daerah Johor atau Pendaftar Hakmilik Tanah Johor dan/atau segala pihak berkuasa yang terlibat dalam pendaftaran hakmilik dan/atau hartanah membatalkan Geran yang asal bagi Hartanah tersebut dan membenarkan Plaintif, diberi kebebasan untuk memohon dan mendapatkan daripada Pentadbir Tanah Daerah Johor atau Pendaftar Hakmilik Tanah Johor dan/atau segala pihak berkuasa yang terlibat dalam pendaftaran hakmilik dan/atau hartanah, Geran asal yang baru untuk Hartanah tersebut bagi menggantikan Geran yang terdahulu, menurut peruntukan-peruntukan di bawah Kanun Tanah Negara 1965;

(e) suatu perintah bahawa Pentadbir Tanah Daerah Johor atau Pendaftar Hakmilik Tanah Johor dan/atau segala pihak berkuasa yang terlibat dalam pendaftaran hakmilik dan/atau hartanah dan/atau semua Pegawai lain yang terlibat, melakukan pendaftaran, memorial dan/atau indorsmen yang relevan kepada Dokumen Hakmilik Daftar yang relevan dan/atau Rekod-rekod Daftar dan/atau Dokumen Hakmilik Asal yang berkaitan dengan Hartanah tersebut dan melaksanakan segala perkara __________________________________________________________________________________________ 4 yang perlu bagi memberi kesan kepada Deklarasi dan/atau Perintah Mahkamah ini;

(f) suatu perintah menurut Seksyen 417 Kanun Tanah Negara 1965, bahawa Pendaftar Hakmilik Tanah Johor adalah dikehendaki melakukan semua yang diperlukan bagi mendaftarkan Plantif pemilik ke atas Hartanah tersebut; dan

(g) Gantirugi untuk ditaksirkan oleh Mahkamah. [6] On 22.3. 2019, the 1st Defendant filed the Statement of Defence and Counter-claim which stated that the 1st Defendant was not the registered owner of the Property when the execution of the 1st Agreement. Instead, the 1st Defendant averred that the Property was owned by a company known as Kheng Hup Company Limited then. According to the 1st Defendant, it purchased the Property from the company on 25.4.1968 via a sale and purchase agreement (“2nd Agreement”) with the purchase price of RM800,625.00 and the memorandum of transfer for the Property was registered in the Land Office on 18.5.1968. The 1st Defendant also contended that the Plaintiff’s claim is time-barred as it was filed out of the time prescribed by the law. [7] On 21.9.2020, the Plaintiff conducted a land search for the Property and discovered that the Property was transferred to the 2nd Defendant on 27.6.2019. Accordingly, the Plaintiff filed a suit against the 2nd Defendant at Johor Bahru High Court with registration number JA-22NCvC-12- 02/2019 (“2nd Suit”). As the Land in the 2nd Suit is the same subject matter with the present suit, on 1.12.2020, the Plaintiff applied to the court that the 2nd Suit be consolidated with the present suit which was allowed on 9.3.2021. __________________________________________________________________________________________ 5 [8] On 7.5.2021, the 2nd Defendant filed the Statement of Defence and Counter-claim stating that a sale and purchase agreement (“3rd Agreement”) was entered on 8.8.2018 between the 1st and 2nd Defendants as to allow the 2nd Defendant to develop the Property. Subsequently, the 2nd Defendant charged the Property to the Proposed Intervener as to raise capital in order to develop the Property. [9] On 23.2.2022, the Proposed Intervener filed an application in Enclosure 46 pursuant to O. 15 r. 6(2)(b) of the Rules of Court 2012 (“ROC”) as to intervene in this suit with the following reasons:

(a) Pencelah yang Dicadangkan telah memberikan Kemudahan Perbankan kepada Defendan Kedua dalam jumlah RM77 juta. Menurut Kemudahan Perbankan ini, Defendan Kedua melalui Perserahan No.: 80334/2019 bertarikh 25 September 2019 (“Gadaian Sah”) mewujudkan gadaian berdaftar pihak pertama yang memihak kepada Pencelah yang Dicadangkan ke atas dua puluh satu (21) bidang tanah yang mana termasuk antara lain Lot 29115, Geran 316032 (“Tanah”);

(b) Tanah ini merupakan perkara pokok dalam guaman ini dan Plaintif sedang memohon antara lain pengisytiharan bahawa Tanah ini dipegang oleh Defendan Pertama sebagai pemegang Amanah untuk Plaintif dan suatu perintah untuk Defendan Kedua memindahkan hakmilik Tanah itu kembali kepada Plaintif;

(c) Oleh itu, hak dan kepentingan di sisi undang-undang Pencelah yang Dicadangkan sebagai pemegang gadaian berdaftar Tanah akan terjejas secara langsung oleh perintah-perintah yang diminta oleh Plaintif dalam tindakan ini. __________________________________________________________________________________________ 6 [10] I have scrutinised the Proposed Intervener’s Affidavit-in-Support in Enclosure 48 and discovered the following facts:

(a) the Proposed Intervener had granted 5 Term Loans to the 2nd Defendant totalling RM77 million (“Banking Facilities”) as a working capital in relation to the development of the housing project and reimbursement for the purchase of the Property from the 1st Defendant;

(b) in consideration of the Proposed Intervener’s agreement to grant the Banking Facilities to the 2nd Defendant, the 2nd Defendant had inter alia agreed to create a first-party registered charge over the Property to the Proposed Intervener and a joint and several guarantee for RM18,300,000.00 to be executed by the directors of the 2nd Defendant for Term Loan;

(c) by way of a legal charge with Presentation No. 80334/2019 dated 25.9.2019 (“Legal Charge”), the 2nd Defendant had created a first party registered charge in favour of the Proposed Intervener over 21 parcels of lands which includes inter alia the Land; and

(d) as at 31.1.2022, the 2nd Defendant owes the Proposed Intervener RM58,977,227.69 under the Banking Facilities, which is secured by inter alia, the Legal Charge. [11] However, the Proposed Intervener’s application was strenuously objected by the Plaintiff based on the following reasons: __________________________________________________________________________________________ 7

(a) the Plaintiff’s cause of action in this suit on the alleged breach of contract only involves the 1st Defendant;

(b) the Proposed Intervener is not privy to the 1st Agreement which is the sole consideration in this suit;

(c) the Proposed Intervener is not a party who can contribute to the resolution of the case;

(d) the Proposed Intervener can recover the 2nd Defendant’s debt through other reliefs; and

(e) the Proposed Intervener failed to disclose its role to intervene. Law on intervener [12] The law on adding a party to an action is governed by O. 15 r. 6(2) of the ROC 2012 which reads –

(a) order any person who has been improperly or unnecessarily made a party or who has for any reason ceased to be a proper or necessary party, to cease to be a party;

(b) order any of the following persons to be added as a party, namely —

(i) any person who ought to have been joined as a party or whose presence before the Court is __________________________________________________________________________________________ 8 necessary to ensure that all matters in dispute in the cause or matter may be effectually and completely determined and adjudicated upon; or

(a) that there is a question or issue to be tried as between Mr Mathai and one of the existing parties in the petition; and

(b) that the question or issue arises out of or relates to or is connected with any relief or remedy claimed in the petition. If the answer to each of the above is in the affirmative, then the question of jurisdiction is in favour of Mr Mathai. However, the court has further to be satisfied that it would be just and convenient for the question or issue to be determined as between the intervener and that party and between the existing parties to the petition at the hearing of the petition before granting the application to intervene. __________________________________________________________________________________________ 10 Finding of this Court [17] The crux of the Proposed Intervener’s grounds to intervene were –

(a) the Proposed Intervener, as the registered chargee of the Property, has a direct legal interest in the subject matter of the present action which is the Property as it has been charged to the Proposed Intervener as security by the 2nd Defendant for the Banking Facilities granted by the Proposed Intervener; and

(b) any determination or order relating to the Property which may be given in this action would materially affect the Proposed Intervener’s legal rights and interest as the registered chargee of the Property. [18] I have perused the contemporaneous documents and find that the reliefs sought by the Plaintiff are inter alia for the Land to be transferred to and be owned by the Plaintiff. [19] As alluded to before, the Proposed Intervener was not a party to the 1st Agreement and its relation is only with the 2nd Defendant. Thus, I find that its agreement with the 2nd Defendant cannot be relevant to the dispute between the Plaintiff and the Defendants. Adding the Proposed Intervener as a party contributes nothing to the resolution of the dispute between the parties in the main suit as there is no cause of action of the Plaintiff against the Proposed Intervener. [20] It is no doubt that if the Plaintiff succeeds in this suit, any order of this court would affect the status of the Land. But it does not mean that it __________________________________________________________________________________________ 11 would affect the Proposed Intervener’s legal rights and interest as the registered chargee of the Property. [21] As required as a test set in Gula Perak Bhd (supra), I find that the Proposed Intervener failed to establish any question or issue to be tried between the Proposed Intervener and the Plaintiff as well as the 1st Defendant. Further, the Proposed Intervener also failed to raise any question or issue that is related or connected with any relief or remedy claimed by the Plaintiff. The Proposed Intervener’s action, if any, is entirely distinct and separate from the cause of action between the Plaintiff and the Defendants. The Proposed Intervener has only cause of action against the 2nd Defendant. [22] In MBF Property Services Sdn Bhd v. Madihill Development Sdn Bhd & Ors [1998] 1 CLJ SUPP 110 [1998] 1 BLJ 110, Malik Ishak J (as he then was) – Order 15 r. 6(2) of the RHC is designed "to save rather than to destroy, to cure that which is capable of cure" (per Holroyd Pearce LJ in Pontin v. Wood [1962] 1 QB 609) and it is also designed to bring all parties to disputes arising out of one subject matter be brought before the court at the same time so that the disputes may be effectually determined without any semblance of delay, inconvenience and expense of a separate trial [23] I agree with the learned counsel for the Plaintiff that the introduction of the issues between the Proposed Intervener and the 2nd Defendant into this suit between the Plaintiff and the Defendants would not contribute anything towards resolution of the disputes between them except adding more muddy and cloudy direction of this suit. __________________________________________________________________________________________ 12 Conclusion [24] Based on what have been said thus far, it is clear that the Proposed Intervener is not a party that may be directly affected by any judgment that this Court may give in the main action. Therefore, I dismiss the Proposed Intervener’s application in Enclosure 46 and costs to be paid by the Proposed Intervener to the Plaintiff. Dated: 18.9.2022 -SIGNED- (SHAMSULBAHRI BIN HAJI IBRAHIM) Judicial Commissioner, Johor Bahru High Court Counsels: - For the Plaintiff - Khairulazwad bin Sariman (Ahmad Nur Awalluddin bin Zakaria with him); Messrs Azwad Ihsan & Co - For the 2nd Defendant - Lua Kok Hiyong (Ummi Salhah binti Mohamad with her); Messrs Lua & Mansor - For the Proposed Intervener - Aufa binti Radzi (Chew Sue Peng with her); Messrs Skrine Cases referred to: - Gula Perak Bhd v. Varghese Mathai [1988] 1 LNS 106 - MBF Property Services Sdn Bhd v. Madihill Development Sdn Bhd & Ors [1998] 1 CLJ SUPP 110 [1998] 1 BLJ 110 - Pegang Mining Company Ltd v. Choong Sam & Ors [1968] 1 LNS 96; [1969] 2 MLJ 52 __________________________________________________________________________________________ 13 - Sri Permata Sdn Bhd v. PPH Realty Sdn Bhd; Lingkaran Cemerlang Sdn Bhd (Interveners) [2001] 7 CLJ 633 - Tohtonku Sdn. Bhd. v. Superace (M) Sdn. Bhd. [1992] 1 CLJ Rep 344; [1992] 2 MLJ 63 Legislation referred to: - Rules of Court 2012 - O. 15 r. 6(2)(b)