KHOO SAN LEE KEAN CHOON

KHOO SAN LEE KEAN CHOON

Although substituted service by the Third Respondent was irregular and premature, the three‑month limitation under s.418 NLC began to run from the date the Plaintiff was informed of the partition decision in early March 2021; the Plaintiff's appeal was therefore filed out of time and the High Court's dismissal of the originating summons and refusal of the First Defendant's counterclaim was correct and is affirmed.

Citation
B-01(NCvC)(A)-806-11/2022 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Parties
Appellant: Lee Kean Choon; First Respondent: Khoo San; Second Respondent: Pengarah Tanah dan Galian Negeri Selangor; Third Respondent: Pentadbir Tanah Klang
Court
NCvC
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
16 December 2024
Case Number
B-01(NCvC)(A)-806-11/2022 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal (land) / Court of Appeal Decision Affirming High Court Judgment
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; High Court judgment affirmed
Legal Topics
Partition of Land, Co Proprietorship, Statutory Appeal Period (s.418 Nlc), Substituted Service (s.432 Nlc), Frustration of Contract
Source Language
Malay/English
Land Law Civil Procedure Administrative Law Partition of Land Co Proprietorship Statutory Appeal Period (s.418 Nlc) Substituted Service (s.432 Nlc) Frustration of Contract

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 18 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Lee Kean Choon

Appellant

Khoo San

First Respondent

Pengarah Tanah dan Galian Negeri Selangor

Second Respondent

Pentadbir Tanah Klang

Third Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal (land) / Court of Appeal Decision Affirming High Court Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether substituted service effected by Third Respondent was valid
  2. 2 When the three-month appeal period under s.418 National Land Code begins to run
  3. 3 Whether the State's approval to partition was ultra vires or invalid for failure to rely on 1971 agreement

Ratio Decidendi

Although substituted service by the Third Respondent was irregular and premature, the three‑month limitation under s.418 NLC began to run from the date the Plaintiff was informed of the partition decision in early March 2021; the Plaintiff's appeal was therefore filed out of time and the High Court's dismissal of the originating summons and refusal of the First Defendant's counterclaim was correct and is affirmed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; High Court judgment affirmed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed and High Court decision affirmed
  • High Court order dismissing Plaintiff's Originating Summons upheld