Daneeswaran a/l Nagappan Kiruba Raja A/l S.m. Kanagamany (Mej (R) Dr.)

Daneeswaran a/l Nagappan Kiruba Raja A/l S.m. Kanagamany (Mej (R) Dr.)

The High Court held that the Respondent/Plaintiff proved he was the lawful lessee under lease agreements and continuing rental payments; the Appellant/Defendant failed to prove any licence, consent or lawful title to occupy; the Appellant is a trespasser/squatter; the Sessions Court correctly applied law and O.89 ROC 2012 is the proper mode for summary possession against squatters; therefore the appeal is dismissed and the Sessions Court judgment is upheld with costs RM6,000.

Citation
BA-12A-94-12/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Parties
Appellant/defendant: Daneeswaran a/l Nagappan; Respondent/plaintiff: Kiruba Raja a/l S.M. Kanagamany
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
27 November 2023
Case Number
BA-12A-94-12/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Judgment on Appeal
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; Sessions Court judgment upheld
Legal Topics
Possession, Locus Standi, Order 89 Rules of Court 2012, Specific Relief Act Ss.7 & 8, Trespass, Lease
Source Language
Malay/English
Property Law Land Law Civil Procedure Equity Possession Locus Standi Order 89 Rules of Court 2012 Specific Relief Act Ss.7 & 8 +2 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 6 Authorities cited 16 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Daneeswaran a/l Nagappan

Appellant/defendant

Kiruba Raja a/l S.M. Kanagamany

Respondent/plaintiff

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Judgment on Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Respondent/Plaintiff has locus standi as lessee to bring O.89 summary possession proceedings
  2. 2 Whether the Appellant/Defendant entered lawfully and/or had licence/consent to occupy
  3. 3 Whether there are triable issues requiring a full trial

Ratio Decidendi

The High Court held that the Respondent/Plaintiff proved he was the lawful lessee under lease agreements and continuing rental payments; the Appellant/Defendant failed to prove any licence, consent or lawful title to occupy; the Appellant is a trespasser/squatter; the Sessions Court correctly applied law and O.89 ROC 2012 is the proper mode for summary possession against squatters; therefore the appeal is dismissed and the Sessions Court judgment is upheld with costs RM6,000.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; Sessions Court judgment upheld

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed with costs of RM6000.00 subject to fi alokatur
  • Sessions Court order for Defendant and all others to vacate and deliver vacant possession of Plot ST1, Plot ST2 and Plot ST4 (Lot 2425 Mukim Batang Kali, Hulu Selangor) to Plaintiff and remove belongings within seven (7) days from service of the order