Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 1


s. 334 defines a prohibitory order to
mean an order made pursuant to rules
of court by a court of competent
jurisdiction prohibiting the judgement-
debtor from effecting any dealing in
respect of his land or interest in that
This order is issued when the creditor
had succeeded in his case against the
Karuppiah Chettiar v Subramaniam :
a prohibitory order u/s 334 issued under
O 43 r 2 of ules of !upreme "ourt
#$%& is analogous to writ of fieri facias.
'a( ) prohibitory order only ta*e effect until it has been
entered by the egistrar u/s. 33% on the +T of the said
land or interest.
'b( Once the prohibitory order is presented to the , he
must endorsed on +T the word -.rohibitory Order/
and state whether the order relates to land or interest. S.
'#( 0t prohibits s. 331 '#( 2 '2(
'a( registration, endorsement or entry of any
instrument of dealing e3ecuted by or on behalf of
the proprietor 'but not any certificate of sale
relating thereto eg. sale by recei4er(
'b( any claim to benefit of any tenancy e3empt from
'c( any lien holder5s ca4eat.
'2( 0t does not prohibits registration, endorsement or
entry of any instrument, claim or lien holders ca4eat
where the instrument was presented prior to the
prohibitory order ta*es effect. !. 331'3(
'3( ) judgement-creditor who attaches the land of a
judgement-debtor does not thereby ac6uire any
proprietary interest in the land. The right of the
judgement 7creditor to sale the land is subject to all
other e3isting rights or interests thereon.
Karuppiah Chettiar v Subramaniam
8" held that a purchaser who has entered a ca4eat in
order to protect his interest in the 4endor9s land has
priority o4er the claim of a judgement-creditor who
subse6uently entered a prohibitory order.
%eriam Yaa&'b v She(( %a(a)*ia Tra+in, S+n.Bh+.
8" held that a judgement creditor can only ta*e
whate4er interest the judgement-debtor has in the land
and not against any interest in the land in respect of
which the right of the judgement-debtor has since
ceased to e3ist.
Chua Hee Hun, - Or* v .BE Supreme In*uran&e
obtained judgement as against "hu :un for sum of
money. .art of this sum was paid and remanding
unpaid. obtained a prohibitory order against shares 2
leases and it was registered. "hu :un5s lawyer replied
that "hu :un has no interest in the properties concern .0t
has been sold to the )ppelents #; years ago where full
purchase price had been paid and )pp had ta*en
possession. )pp applied to court to ha4e the .O
remo4ed but was dismissed .On appeal to !upreme
"ourt, the appeal was allowed and ordered to set aside
the .O. The !" held that when the 4endor had recei4ed
the full purchase price and has gi4en possession of the
land to the purchaser, he is only a bare trustees for the
purchaser. "hu :un has no beneficial interest in the
8ailure of the purchaser to enter pri4ate ca4eat to protect
their beneficial interest does not ad4ance the case for
the respondents o4er the property.
#. s. 33< '#( .rohibitory Order shall lapse
at the e3piry of 1 months from the date
on which it was made unless its
duration is e3tended by an order of the
2. !. 33<'2( a copy of the court order
must be presented to the egistrar
before the e3piry of the 1 months.
3. !. 33$'#( a prohibitory order can be
withdrawn at any time by order of the
court. =pon recei4ing the court order
regarding the withdrawal, the egistrar
shall cancel the entry on +T and
states the reason and date.
4. !. 33$ '2( >esides e3piry and
withdrawal, a prohibitory order also
ceases to ha4e effect and the entry
shall be cancelled on the registration
of '#( any transfer e3ecuted by an
officer of the court or 'ii( any certificate
of sale under the direction of court
pursuant to s. 2%$ and 21% of ?@".
s. 4#& '#( gi4es general power to the court
to order the registrar or @) to gi4e effect to
the court order made as regards to any
proceedings relating to land. 0t is the duty
of the or @) to comply with it.
Ahere a ca4eat is defecti4e by reason of it
being larger than that to which the ca4eator
is entitle to, the court may order its
0an,e+a*e(am v %aha+evan - An'r
The epresentati4e of the deceased
applied for the remo4al of pri4ate ca4eat of
the deceased land . The B" order the
remo4al but 8" allow the appeal by the
)ppelalants. Beld that a person who has
partial interest on the said land must apply
for ca4eat for the whole land but the effect
is only of that portion in which he has
%'*bert Bh+. "In 1i2ui+ati'n$ v Ste((a D3
Cru4 5678!9
!han*r C ordered the amendment of a
defecti4e ca4eat u/s. 4#& '2( but on appeal,
the !upreme "ourt held that the pro4ision
of that section does not empower the court
to ma*e such order.
Chn, Sin P'e) - S'n* S+n.Bh+. v .ue:
1ian %en, D#$&$E The court has power to
order the amendment of a defecti4e
0n this case a ca4eat binding the whole
land was entered when the ca4eator had
only intended to ca4eat a particular interest