Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
PART 1
Discuss the requirements to
enter a Registrars Caveat
S320(1)(a)
FACTS:
The defendant had sold a piece of land and contracted to build a house on the said
land for the plaintiff and the plaintiff in this case had paid more progress money than
it was entitled to. However, the defendant demand for more payment, and when it
was refused, they claimed that the plaintiff had no money to complete the purchase
and they sought to repudiate the agreement to sell to a third party.
The Plaintiff applied for a Registrars Caveat to be entered on the grounds of
prevention of improper dealings. Counsel for the Defendant argued that, on a proper
reading ofs. 319 of the National Land Code, the Registrar was the only person who
could decide whether to enter his Caveat. His contention was that there was no power
HELD
:
in anyone,
not even the Court, to order him to do so.
The High Court held that S320(1)(a) of the NLC empowers the Registrar to enter a
Registrar Caveat for the prevention of fraud and improper dealing and the court has
the power to order the Registrar to enter registrar caveat since Registrar was before
the Court under s417(1).
Held
REGISTRARS POWER
Palaniappa
Chettiar v
Letchuman
an Chettiar
[1982]
[Federal
Court]
COURTS ORDER
Boonsom Boonyanit
v Adorna Prop.
[1990] [HC]
Lim Ah Hun v
Pendaftar Hakmilik
Tanah P. Pinang &
Anor. [1990] [HC]
PART 2
Critically analyse the
development of the recent
cases interpreting s.321 regarding
removal of Registrars Caveat.
SECTION 321(3)
A Registrars caveat shall continue in force until
it is cancelled by the Registrar
Of his own motion; or
On an application in that behalf by the
proprietor of the land affected; or
Pursuant to any order of the Court made on an
appeal under Section 418 against his decision
to enter the caveat, or his refusal of any
application for its cancellation under
paragraph (b)
Original Principles
Lim Ah Hun v.
Pendaftar Hak Milk
Tanah , Pulau
Pinang (1990)
(High Court)
Development &
Commercial Bank
v. LA Wilayah
Persekutuan
(1991) (Supreme
Court)
Pendaftar
Hakmilik
Negeri Kedah v.
Overseas Chinese
Banking Corp
(1991) (Supreme
Court)
Public Bank Bhd v.
Pengarah Tanah &
Galian (1990)
(Supreme Court)
THE DEVELOPMENT
otif Unik Sdn Bhd v Khoo Ah Soon [2012] 10 CLJ 612 (High Co
FACTS
22 lots of land originally owned by Sungei Bakau Realty Snd Bhd (SBR).
Those lands were transferred to the applicant .
In year 1997 ,1st Respondent initiated 2 civil proceedings against SBR . 1
was dismissed and the other suit was struck off
13 years later,1st Respondent reinitiated civil proceedings against SBR and
the applicant. A Registrar Caveat was entered
Applicant applied to the court to remove the RC entered by Registrar (2 nd
Respondent) pursuant to a request by the police which based on a
complaint by the 1st Respondent.
Core Issue Whether 2nd Respondent Was Right In Refusing To Cancel The
Registrars Caveat
1. Registrar must be satisfied objectively before entering a Registrars Caveat
Before Registrar exercises his power, he must be satisfied objectively with the information
1. Lim Ah Hun v Pendaftar Hakmilik Tanah , Pulau Pinang (1990)
and facts supplied to him. If this was not done, the caveat can be challenged and the court
(High
Court)
may issue
a direction to remove the caveat.
2. Pendaftar Hak Milik Negeri Kedah v Overseas-Chinese Banking Corp Ltd
(1991)
Registrar
did not exercise
(Supreme
Court) his discretionary power according to the limits in Section 320(1)
(ba) because he failed to take relevant considerations into account.
He acted ultra vires and his act was invalid. Since the sole consideration taken by the
Registrar to enter Registrar Caveat was the request of the police , the Registrar did not
assess the matter objectively.
Registrars role to enter a Registrar Caveat is not a mechanical one at all. He must assess
all relevant information or facts supplied by applicant before such caveat to be entered or it
to be cancelled.
It is not enough for Registrar to say since it was the police who requested to enter a
Registrar Caveat and they did not withdraw such request, the Registrar is not in a position
to cancel such caveat.
Abdul
FACTS OF
THE CASE
THE DEVELOPMENT
Moden Hartawan Sdn Bhd v Pentadbir Tanah Johor Bahru [2015] 11
MLJ 191 (High Court)
(On the issue of whether the plaintiff has sufficient interest to apply for
removal);
Held:
The Court in deciding whether the plaintiff has the right to file application for the
removal of RC said that: The plaintiff was clearly an aggrieved party by the entry and existence of the caveat
and thus qualified to apply for its removal or cancellation unders. 418 NLC.
Having paid the full purchase price of the land to the vendor, who then executed the
Form 14A and handed over possession of the issue document of title and the land to P,
P became the sole equitable and beneficial owner of the subject land while the
previous proprietors became the bare trustees for P with no further interest in or claim
to title to the land. Hence, P had sufficient interest and capacity to make the
application for cancellation of the RC that prohibited registration of title of the said
land in Ps name.
THE DEVELOPMENT
Moden Hartawan Sdn Bhd v Pentadbir Tanah Johor Bahru [2015] 11 MLJ 191
(High Court)
(On the issue of whether the registrar's caveat was wrongly entered)
Held:
Under the Torrens system practised in Malaysia and legislatedviathe NLC, the register is
everything and absolute with regard to title and ownership, save for some exceptions under the
NLC. WH had an indefeasible registered title to the subject land and was capable of passing a
good title to the subject land to the plaintiff who, as abona fidepurchaser for value, had
become the equitable and beneficial owner.
The registrar, after having issued the certification of title which showed that the ownership of
the subject property was wholly in the name of WH, was now estopped from denying the
certification to the detriment of the plaintiff who relied on the document of title duly certified to
purchase and obtain ownership of the property lawfully.
The defendant did not have valid grounds that were good in law to enter the registrar's caveat
on the land particularly in view of the conclusiveness of the register document of title unders.
89 NLC. Therefore, the registrar had wrongly entered the caveat and erroneously refused to
register the duly executed transfer documents of title by the then registered proprietor to the
plaintiff.
FACTS
OF THE
CASE
of any
person who is under the disability of infancy or unsoundness of
mind, or is absent from Sarawak, to prohibit the transfer or dealing
with any estate or interest belonging or supposed to belong to any
such person, or on behalf of the Government to secure the interests
of the Government, or the enforcement of any charitable trust or
the interests of the public, or any class or section of the public, or of
any public body, and also to prohibit the dealing with any land,
estate or interest in any case in which it appears to him that an
error has been made in any document of title, or for the prevention
of fraud or improper dealing.
Despite
THANK YOU