PARVATHI A/P PERIAKARUPPAN AMALAN SETAR (M) SDN. BHD.

PARVATHI A/P PERIAKARUPPAN AMALAN SETAR (M) SDN. BHD.

The deeming provision in Clause 26(3) does not operate where the purchaser was prevented from taking possession by an intervening act facilitated by a third party; the first notice did not result in deemed possession due to the renovation mix-up, but the second notice dated 22 May 2020 was valid and possession was therefore deemed on 22 June 2020, entitling the purchaser to liquidated damages from 13 January 2020 to 21 June 2020; loss of rental award adjusted to RM5,000 and costs RM5,000.

Citation
BA-12BNCvC-50-08/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Parties
Appellant; Plaintiff: Parvathi A/P Perakaruppan; Respondent; Defendant: Amalan Setar (M) Sdn. Bhd.; Third Party: Jaikanes a/l Manokaran
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
23 July 2025
Case Number
BA-12BNCvC-50-08/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / High Court Re Hearing on Appeal From Sessions Court Under Order 55 Rule 2 Rules of Court 2012
Outcome
Appeal allowed in part. High Court varied Sessions Court award: liquidated damages payable from 13 January 2020 to 21 June 2020; loss of rental increased; costs awarded to appellant.
Legal Topics
Vacant Possession, Liquidated Damages, Deeming Clause, Sale and Purchase Agreement, Loss of Rental Income, Re Hearing
Source Language
Malay/English
Contract Property Civil Procedure Damages Vacant Possession Liquidated Damages Deeming Clause Sale and Purchase Agreement +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 3 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Parvathi A/P Perakaruppan

Appellant; Plaintiff

Amalan Setar (M) Sdn. Bhd.

Respondent; Defendant

Jaikanes a/l Manokaran

Third Party

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / High Court Re Hearing on Appeal From Sessions Court Under Order 55 Rule 2 Rules of Court 2012

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether vacant possession was delivered to the purchaser
  2. 2 Whether Clause 26(3) deeming provision operates despite factual intervening acts
  3. 3 Whether purchaser is entitled to liquidated damages and loss of rental income

Ratio Decidendi

The deeming provision in Clause 26(3) does not operate where the purchaser was prevented from taking possession by an intervening act facilitated by a third party; the first notice did not result in deemed possession due to the renovation mix-up, but the second notice dated 22 May 2020 was valid and possession was therefore deemed on 22 June 2020, entitling the purchaser to liquidated damages from 13 January 2020 to 21 June 2020; loss of rental award adjusted to RM5,000 and costs RM5,000.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed in part. High Court varied Sessions Court award: liquidated damages payable from 13 January 2020 to 21 June 2020; loss of rental increased; costs awarded to appellant.

Orders

  • Vacant possession deemed on 22 June 2020 pursuant to valid notice dated 22 May 2020
  • Appellant awarded liquidated damages from 13 January 2020 to 21 June 2020