Vimala A/P Maruthamuthoo v Paul Monash A/L Narayanasamy (BA-24NCvC-1077-05/2024)

Enclosure 1 is the Plaintiff’s application made pursuant to sections 327, 329, and 417 of the National Land Code 1965 (NLC 1965) seeking an order to remove the private caveat lodged by the Defendant, Paul Monash a/l Narayanasamy, on 3 April 2024 over the property held under Geran 339999, Lot 126483, Mukim Dengkil, Daerah Sepang, Negeri Selangor (the Property).

The Plaintiff’s application was premised on the assertion that the Defendant has no caveatable interest in the Property, and that the continued presence of the caveat causes serious prejudice to the Plaintiff, who has fully performed her obligations under a valid sale and purchase transaction.

Prior to the decision of this application, the Court had, via Enclosure 6, dismissed the application by one Kavitah a/p Vathumalai to intervene in this proceeding in respect of the private caveat lodged by her on 10 July 2023.

The Property in question is held under Geran 339999, Lot 126483, Mukim Dengkil, Daerah Sepang, Negeri Selangor. On 11 April 2023, the Plaintiff, Vimala a/p Maruthamuthoo, entered into a Sale and Purchase Agreement (SPA) with the registered owners of the Property, namely:

Kejendran a/l Nadarajan (Kejendran), who held 1/3 share,

Mardai @ Ratha a/p Ponusamy, who held another 1/3 share in the Property, and

The estate of the late Sargunan a/l Nadarajan (Sargunan), (represented by Kejendran as administrator of the deceased’s estate), who also held a 1/3 share. These individuals shall hereinafter be collectively referred to as “the Vendors”.

The total purchase price under the SPA was RM550,000.00. The Plaintiff paid a deposit of RM55,000.00 upon execution of the SPA. Subsequently, the Plaintiff obtained end-financing from CIMB Islamic Bank Berhad, which settled the redemption sum of RM123,707.49 to the previous financier on 4 November 2023. The balance purchase price of RM371,292.51 was released to the Vendors’ solicitors, Messrs Thana Krishnen & Co, on 21 December 2023.

Prior to entering into the SPA, the Plaintiff conducted a land search on 28 March 2023, which revealed no encumbrances or caveats on the Property. Relying on this, she proceeded to sign the SPA in good faith. The Plaintiff also obtained the requisite developer’s consent to the transfer vide letter dated 23 May 2023 issued by NCT United Development Sdn Bhd.

However, on 3 April 2024 — nearly a year after the SPA — the Defendant lodged a private caveat on the Property, asserting rights under an earlier Sale and Purchase Agreement purportedly executed on 25 January 2012 (the Impugned Agreement) between him and the Vendors.

The Plaintiff contended that the Defendant’s claim was stale and unfounded. She filed the present application under Section 327 of the NLC 1965 to remove the private caveat on the grounds that: a. The Defendant had no caveatable interest in the Property; b. There was an inordinate delay in lodging the caveat; c. The Defendant had failed to take any steps to enforce the alleged Impugned Agreement or to initiate legal action against the Vendors; and d. The presence of the caveat had caused her grave prejudice and injustice.

The Defendant opposed the application. He claimed to have executed the Impugned Agreement with the Vendors on 25 January 2012 and that he had paid a deposit of RM100,000.00 and serviced monthly instalments on behalf of the Vendors to Citibank totalling RM93,405.00 between 2013 and 2023. He further argued that the Plaintiff’s SPA had not been perfected due to an earlier caveat lodged by one Kavitah a/p Vathumalai on 10 July 2023, therefore, his own caveat was necessary to protect his interest.

The Defendant also contended that the Plaintiff’s SPA was defective due to a typographical error in the NRIC number of one of the Vendors, Kejendran, in the Letters of Administration pertaining to the estate of Sargunan. However, the Plaintiff submitted that the High Court in Kuala Lumpur had allowed a correction of the NRIC number through an amendment order, and that the error did not invalidate the SPA.

Importantly, the Defendant had not initiated any legal action to enforce the alleged Impugned Agreement since 2012 and only moved to lodge the caveat after the Plaintiff had completed payment of the full purchase price.

Section 327 of the NLC 1965 provides that any person or body aggrieved by the existence of a private caveat may at any time apply to the Court for an order for the removal of the caveat.

The Court of Appeal in Wu Shu Chen (Sole Executrix of the Estate of Goh Keng How, Deceased) & Anor v Raja Zainal Abidin bin Raja Hussin [1997] 2 MLJ 487 observed that: “(2) The word ‘aggrieved’ must be given its ordinary meaning. To be aggrieved means one is dissatisfied with or adversely affected by a wrongful act of someone. An aggrieved person is therefore a person whose legal right or interest is adversely affected by the wrongful act or conduct of another person or body. The category of aggrieved persons is never closed.” [emphasis added]

The Court of Appeal in Luggage Distributors (M) Sdn Bhd v Tan Hor Teng & Anor [1995] 1 MLJ 719 laid down a three-stage test to determine whether a caveat should be maintained: a. Whether the caveator has shown a caveatable interest in law; b. Whether a serious question arises to merit a trial; and c. Where the balance of convenience lies.

As stated above, under section 327 of the NCL 1965, any aggrieved person may apply to the Court for the removal of a private caveat. The Plaintiff, having entered into a valid and subsisting SPA, paid the deposit and balance purchase price, and complied with all the necessary procedural steps, is an “aggrieved person” under the meaning set out in Wu Shu Chen v Raja Zainal Abidin (supra).

This Court next considers whether the Defendant has a valid caveatable interest under the Luggage Distributors test. The Defendant’s purported interest arises from an alleged Impugned Agreement. However, it is undisputed that at the material time of execution, Kejendran had yet to obtain a valid grant of Letters of Administration for his late brother, Sargunan’s estate (the Grant for the Letters of Administration was only obtained in January 2013). This directly contravenes the principle in Futuristic Builders Sdn Bhd v Harinder Singh & Ors [2008] 2 MLJ 273, where the Federal Court held that an agreement executed by individuals not lawfully authorised to act on behalf of an estate is invalid.

Even if this Court were to accept the Impugned Agreement as validly executed, the Defendant failed to produce any credible evidence that he fulfilled his contractual obligations under the agreement. There was no documentary proof of the RM150,000.00 deposit allegedly paid, nor any payments towards the balance purchase price. The Defendant’s reliance on instalment payments to Citibank, allegedly made on behalf of the Vendors, remains ambiguous and is insufficient to support a proprietary claim over the Property.

Furthermore, the Defendant did not initiate any suit or specific performance action to enforce the Impugned Agreement for more than 12 years. The limitation period to enforce such contractual claims has long lapsed, and this delay, coupled with the Defendant’s passive conduct, strongly militates against any finding of a serious question to be tried. In the case of Natsafe (M) Sdn Bhd v Loi Teak Kuong [2005] 6 MLJ 454 which stated as follows: “39 Even assuming for the moment that the defendant has a caveatable interest in the property, which is not the case here, the conduct of the defendant in not filing any action to enforce his purported right to the property leaves much to be desired. It must be recalled that the private caveat was entered by the defendant on 17 March 2003. To date, sad to say, the defendant has not commenced any action to enforce his purported right to the property. There has been a delay of almost two years on the part of the defendant to commence proceedings timeously to enforce his legal rights, if any. There is no indication whatsoever that an action will be filed in respect of the property. In any event and at any rate, the defendant has no cause of action whatsoever against the plaintiff and/or its property. The private caveat on the property ought to be removed forthwith.” [emphasis added]

The Court is also not persuaded by the Defendant’s argument that the Plaintiff’s claim is defective due to a typographical error in the NRIC of Kejendran in the Letters of Administration. That error was duly rectified by an amendment order issued by the Kuala Lumpur High Court. The error did not cause any material prejudice or confusion. The Plaintiff has provided sufficient documentation confirming the Vendors’ identities and their capacity to execute the

The third stage of the Luggage Distributors test concerns the balance of convenience. The Court finds that the scales tip decidedly in the Plaintiff’s favour. She has performed all her contractual obligations and stands to suffer real and continuing prejudice if the caveat is not removed, including her inability to register the title and risk to her financier’s security. In contrast, the Defendant has taken no meaningful steps to assert his purported rights for over a decade.

This Court further finds that the Plaintiff was under no legal obligation to bring a joint suit with the Vendors as suggested by the Defendant. Section 327 of the NLC 1965 empowers the aggrieved person to apply for the removal of a caveat in their own name. The Plaintiff has taken such steps lawfully and appropriately.

In conclusion, the Defendant’s caveat is found to be unsupported by a valid legal or equitable interest, was lodged after an inordinate delay, and has caused unjustifiable prejudice to the Plaintiff. The Court is satisfied that the caveat must be removed.

For the foregoing reasons, this Court is satisfied that the Defendant has no caveatable interest in the Property, and the Plaintiff has made out a clear case for the removal of the private caveat.

Accordingly, the Plaintiff’s application in Enclosure 1 is allowed. The private caveat lodged by the Defendant on 3 April 2024 vide Presentation No. 00B21655/2024 is ordered to be removed. The Defendant is to pay the costs of RM8000.00 to the Plaintiff. Dated: 27 May 2025 -sgd-JAMHIRAH ALI JUDGE High Court of Malaya at Shah Alam (NCVC 1) To the parties’ solicitors: For the Plaintiff : Etrus Tan (Messrs. L H Yeo & Co.) For the Defendant : J.J. Naidu (Messrs. J.J. Naidu Dan Rakan-Rakan)