1. ) RI'ZUAN BIN ABDULLAH 2. ) ROSLAN BIN ABDULLAN 3. ) SITI ZABEDAH BINTI ABDULLAH 4. ) ROSIDAH BINTI ABDULLAH 5. ) ROZITA BINTI ABDULLAH 6. ) ROSLIZA BINTI ABDULLAH 7. ) MUHAMMAD SAIFUL BIN OTHMAN 8. ) MOHD EFENDI BIN OTHMAN 9. ) NURHIDAY

1. ) RI'ZUAN BIN ABDULLAH 2. ) ROSLAN BIN ABDULLAN 3. ) SITI ZABEDAH BINTI ABDULLAH 4. ) ROSIDAH BINTI ABDULLAH 5. ) ROZITA BINTI ABDULLAH 6. ) ROSLIZA BINTI ABDULLAH 7. ) MUHAMMAD SAIFUL BIN OTHMAN 8. ) MOHD EFENDI BIN OTHMAN 9. ) NURHIDAY

The plaintiffs' proposed partition was unjust and inequitable because it failed to account for existing occupied structures (notably D7's long‑standing house) and was prepared without proper consultation with co‑proprietors; accordingly the court dismissed the plaintiffs' action and, for lack of evidence as to fact and quantum, dismissed the defendants' counterclaim; costs of RM5,000 awarded to defendants.

Citation
PA-22NCvC-119-08/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Parties
Plaintiffs: Rizuian bin Abdullah; Roslan bin Abdullah; Siti Zabedah binti Abdullah; Rosidah binti Abdullah; Rozita binti Abdullah; Rosliza binti Abdullah; Muhammad Saiful bin Othman; Mohd Efendi bin Othman; Nurhidayah binti Othman; Nurashikin binti Othman; Defendant: Azhar bin Omar; Defendant: Harina binti Omar; Defendant: Jamaludin bin Omar; Defendant: Othman bin Omar; Defendant: Rozikim bin Omar; Defendant: Saniza binti Omar; Defendant: Sarif bin Omar; Defendant: Sarifah binti Omar; Defendant: Rosma binti Hamid (administrator of Samsiah bt Ishak estate)
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
20 April 2023
Case Number
PA-22NCvC-119-08/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Procedural Posture
Civil Suit for Termination of Co Proprietorship and Partition of Land / Judgment (after One‑day Trial)
Outcome
Plaintiffs' action dismissed; 1st–8th Defendants' counterclaim dismissed; costs awarded to defendants
Legal Topics
Partition, Co Proprietorship Termination, Section 145 National Land Code, Partition Plans and Existing Structures, Costs and Counterclaims
Source Language
Malay/English
Property Law Land Law Civil Procedure Evidence Partition Co Proprietorship Termination Section 145 National Land Code Partition Plans and Existing Structures +1 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 5 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Rizuian bin Abdullah; Roslan bin Abdullah; Siti Zabedah binti Abdullah; Rosidah binti Abdullah; Rozita binti Abdullah; Rosliza binti Abdullah; Muhammad Saiful bin Othman; Mohd Efendi bin Othman; Nurhidayah binti Othman; Nurashikin binti Othman

Plaintiffs

Azhar bin Omar

Defendant

Harina binti Omar

Defendant

Jamaludin bin Omar

Defendant

Othman bin Omar

Defendant

Rozikim bin Omar

Defendant

Saniza binti Omar

Defendant

Sarif bin Omar

Defendant

Sarifah binti Omar

Defendant

Rosma binti Hamid (administrator of Samsiah bt Ishak estate)

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Suit for Termination of Co Proprietorship and Partition of Land / Judgment (after One‑day Trial)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether it is just or equitable under s.145 NLC to terminate co‑proprietorship and partition the subject land as per plaintiffs' plan
  2. 2 Whether plaintiffs' subdivision plan unfairly disregards existing building (D7's house) and thus should be refused
  3. 3 Whether defendants exceeded their shares by building houses and ownership of additional houses

Ratio Decidendi

The plaintiffs' proposed partition was unjust and inequitable because it failed to account for existing occupied structures (notably D7's long‑standing house) and was prepared without proper consultation with co‑proprietors; accordingly the court dismissed the plaintiffs' action and, for lack of evidence as to fact and quantum, dismissed the defendants' counterclaim; costs of RM5,000 awarded to defendants.

Court Disposition

Plaintiffs' action dismissed; 1st–8th Defendants' counterclaim dismissed; costs awarded to defendants

Orders

  • Plaintiffs' claim for termination of co‑proprietorship and partition dismissed
  • Counterclaim by 1st to 8th Defendants dismissed