Ravindra A/p K Karuppiah [Menuntut Sebagai Pemegang Surat Kuasa Mentadbir Estet Si Mati, Muthiyah A/l Seethambaram] ONG KAY HO

Ravindra A/p K Karuppiah [Menuntut Sebagai Pemegang Surat Kuasa Mentadbir Estet Si Mati, Muthiyah A/l Seethambaram] ONG KAY HO

The Court of Appeal held the appellant's action was barred by res judicata because the same subject matter and reliefs had been adjudicated or fell squarely within issues that could and should have been raised in earlier proceedings (charge action and Suit 723); the illegality exception did not apply because the...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
W-02(IM)(NCvC)-32-01/2020 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Parties
Appellant / Administrator of Estate: RAVINDRA A/P K KARUPPIAH; Respondent: CIMB BANK BERHAD; Respondent / Purchaser at Auction: ONG KAY HO
Court
IM
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
5 January 2022
Case Number
W-02(IM)(NCvC)-32-01/2020 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal From High Court Striking Out Plaintiff's Suit / Court of Appeal Judgment (final Disposal)
Outcome
Appeals dismissed
Legal Topics
Res Judicata, Striking Out Under Order 18 R19 Rules of Court 2012, Foreclosure/charge Action, Auction Sale Validity, Service on Deceased Proprietor (nlc S431 A), Order 15 R6 a Rules of Court 2012
Civil Procedure Property Law Banking and Finance Succession Law Res Judicata Striking Out Under Order 18 R19 Rules of Court 2012 Foreclosure/charge Action Auction Sale Validity +2 more

Source-derived case record

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 4 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

RAVINDRA A/P K KARUPPIAH

Appellant / Administrator of Estate

CIMB BANK BERHAD

Respondent

ONG KAY HO

Respondent / Purchaser at Auction

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal From High Court Striking Out Plaintiff's Suit / Court of Appeal Judgment (final Disposal)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appellant's suit to set aside the order for sale and nullify the auction is barred by res judicata
  2. 2 Whether foreclosure/order for sale was unlawful for failure to serve the deceased's estate or family in compliance with NLC s431A and Order 15 r6A
  3. 3 Whether alleged illegality allowed a collateral attack despite prior proceedings and failure to appeal

Ratio Decidendi

The Court of Appeal held the appellant's action was barred by res judicata because the same subject matter and reliefs had been adjudicated or fell squarely within issues that could and should have been raised in earlier proceedings (charge action and Suit 723); the illegality exception did not apply because the appellant failed to raise the point earlier or appeal and the alleged defects did not justify collateral attack under the narrow exception for substantive illegality.

Court Disposition

Appeals dismissed

Orders

  • Both appeals dismissed with costs of RM3,000 each subject to payment of allocatur