Where a matter is directed to be disposed of summarily the petition (if any) shall ordinarily be adjourned into open Court for hearing and the Court may on such adjourned hearing either grant or refuse the petitioner's prayer or make such other order as may be just.”. [20] Further, O71 R38(1) provides that if a matter is contested, a Judge may dispose the matter in a summary manner or direct that the provisions of Order 72 shall apply. O72 of ROC 2012 deals with contentious probate proceedings. What the Caveator needs to prove? [21] Based on O71 R37 of the ROC 2012, this Court finds that the Caveator needs to prove whether there are grounds for him to oppose the grant of the LA and whether there arises any issue in regards to the grant of the LA? In this sense, this Court finds that the burden of such, lies on the Caveator who allegedly claims having caveatable interest in the Property. S/N ckj3wWtpYk2n6UYH0yU0pw [22] The Caveator is not the legatees of the Estate of the Deceased or Beneficiaries, thus, the question whether the Caveator has an interest as claimed. [23] The Caveator lodged the caveat on the grounds that there is a Judgment dated 23 December 2022 against the Deceased and thus, contended that Enclosure 1 should not be allowed. [24] On the other hand, the Applicant contended that the Caveator’s demand for payment is premature, and the claims, if any, could only be sufficiently dealt with after the LA has been granted where then the Administrator would be able to represent the estate of the Deceased and act accordingly. [25] The Applicant relied on a Singapore case of Khor Liang Ing Grace [executor of the estate of Tan See Wee, deceased] v. Nie Jianmin [2014] SGHC 202, where the court held that the rights of a creditor should not be adjudicated at this stage and this Court agrees. In that case, reference was made to the statement of Sir William Wynne in Elme v Da Costa (1791) 1 Phill Ecc 174 at 177 which held as follows-S/N ckj3wWtpYk2n6UYH0yU0pw “The right of a creditor is only this; he cannot be paid his debt till a representation to the deceased is made; he can then call on all who have a right to administer; before an administration is granted if a will be produced, the creditor has no right to contradict or deny it; for if there is a will, or a next of kin claims the administration, then a person offers to make himself a representative, and the creditor gets all that he has a right to.”. [26] Upon reading all the affidavits by the Applicant and the Caveator, this Court has decided that the matter to be disposed summarily. [27] Firstly, there was no issue in regards to the capacity of the Applicant and of his claim to be appointed as the Administrator as he is also undisputedly, the son of the Deceased. Furthermore, all rightful legatees and Beneficiaries have not raised any issue pertaining to the grant of the LA and there was also no claim over any right, title or interest in the estate of the deceased either by succession, trust or otherwise or question in relation to the existence of title in respect of the estate. [28] The Affidavit of the Caveator affirmed by Lim Joon Keong on 19 January 2024 (Enclosure 23) at paragrapgh 6 stated that “…segala hutang oleh Allahyarham Ishak Bin Sulaiman, Si Mati, terhadap Pengkaveat harus diambilkira dan dipertimbangkan.”. it is clear that the Caveator had lodged the Caveat so as to be notified about the estate of S/N ckj3wWtpYk2n6UYH0yU0pw the Deceased in order to exercise the Caveator’s rights to enforce the judgment of the KLHC Suit obtained against the Deceased. [29] Further, at paragraph 13 of Enclosure 23, the Caveator stated that one of the reasons as to the lodgment of the caveat was because the Caveator wanted to ensure that the Property is not transferred until the sum owed is settled. Additionally, the Caveator would only agree to withdraw the Caveat if the Applicant agrees to settle the judgment sum of the KLHC Suit. [30] The Caveator contended that he has contrary interest to that of the Applicant with regards to the Property that belonged to the Deceased which the Caveator has proceeded to apply for an order for sale. Thus, by reasons of the prohibitory order and/or order for sale in respect of the Property, the Caveator has an interest or at least the Caveator has a claim to an interest in respect of the Deceased’s estate where the Property is part of it. [31] The question arises whether a Caveat taken out by a creditor to protect the Creditor against non-payment out of the estate of the Deceased before a grant of LA can amount to an ‘interest’ pertaining to the estate. S/N ckj3wWtpYk2n6UYH0yU0pw [32] This Court could not agree with the contention of the Caveator, and it does not merit the dismissal of Enclosure 1. Legally, the estate of the Deceased could only be administered including settlement of any debt, after the grant of the LA and not otherwise. [33] In Re Estate Of Ganapathipillai Gangaser Ponnambalam Alias Rose Alagumy, Ex P Gaasinather Gangaser Ponnambalam [1996] MLJU 421 the Court held that the interest which gives rise to enter a general caveat under section 33 of Act 97 is not limited only to an interest of a beneficiary of the deceased but includes also a contractual interest as that of the Caveator. The Court further elaborated that the Caveator in Ganapathipillai has a contrary interest to the petitioner, claiming to an interest of 4/96 portion of the estate based on some letters where the Petitioner, acting on behalf of the Deceased, his sister and himself, agreed to hold for the benefit of and transfer 4/96 portion to the heirs of one late Dato AE Clough (Letters) of whom the Caveator is one of them. The Court was of the view that “the caveat reveals that the Caveator has an interest as a trustee and also as beneficiary in respect of the 4/96 portion out of the 19/96 portion in the estate. This is evident from the said Letters…”. It was observed that the Court in Ganapathipillai when uttering about ‘contractual interest’ was actually referring to the Letters. S/N ckj3wWtpYk2n6UYH0yU0pw [34] This Court agrees with the case relied by the Applicant in Pirojshah Bhikaji vs Pestonji Merwani (12 BOMLR 366) where the Indian Court held- “… the interest which entitles a person to put in a caveat must be an interest in the estate of the deceased person, that is, there should be no dispute whatever as to the title of the deceased to the estate, but that the person who wishes to come in as caveat-or must show some interest in the estate derived from the deceased by inheritance or otherwise. …” [35] This Court finds that this is not a case where there are allegations of intermeddling of the Property of the Deceased’s estate or a dispute as to whether the Property is actually held in trust or that the persons entitled to be administrators have intermeddled with the estate and are liable to make restitution to the estate. Thus, the Caveator has failed to sufficiently prove his interest in the estate of the Deceased. [36] The list of assets and liabilities of the Deceased (Enclosure 6) filed by the Applicant, had also clearly included the Judgement of the KLHC Suit as the Deceased list of liabilities. CONCLUSION [37] The matter before this Court is clearly one which could be disposed summarily. Based on the above reasons, there is no grounds to retain the S/N ckj3wWtpYk2n6UYH0yU0pw caveat. Thus, the caveat is removed. Enclosure 13 is dismissed and Enclosure 1 is allowed, accordingly. -SGD- (SUZANA BINTI MUHAMAD SAID) Pesuruhjaya Kehakiman Mahkamah Tinggi Sivil NCVC1 Kuala Lumpur Dated: 21 SEPTEMBER 2024 COUNSELS FOR THE APPLICANT Tetuan Goik, Ramesh & Loo Peguambela & Peguamcara Suite N-3-1, 2nd Floor, Block N, Plaza Damas 60, Jalan Sri Hartamas 1, Sri Hartamas 50480 Kuala Lumpur FOR THE CAVEATOR Tetuan Arthur Wang, Lian & Associates Peguambela & Peguamcara Unit No. 568-9-10 & 9-11, Kompleks Mutiara, 3 ½ Miles, Jalan Ipoh 51200 Kuala Lumpur S/N ckj3wWtpYk2n6UYH0yU0pw