Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Private caveat removal

Legal area

Court

30 Jan 2026

Perbadanan Kemajuan Pertanian Negeri Pahang (PKPP) NADA RIMBA SDN BHD

Citation

CB-24NCvC-202-08/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

CB-24NCvC-202-08/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Disputes concerning removal of a private caveat under s.327 National Land Code are statutory, fall within an exclusive legislative scheme and are not capable of determination by arbitration; accordingly the arbitration clause is inoperative with respect to the relief sought and the mandatory stay under s.10(1) Arbitration Act 2005 does not apply, therefore the defendant's stay application is dismissed.
24 Feb 2025

VIMALA A/P MARUTHAMUTHOO PAUL MONASH A/L NARAYANASAMY PENCELAH KAVITAH A/P VATHUMALAI

Citation

BA-24NCvC-1077-05/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-24NCvC-1077-05/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Defendant lacked a valid caveatable interest because the alleged 2012 agreement was invalid or unsupported by credible evidence, the defendant delayed for over a decade without enforcing rights (laches/limitation), and the balance of convenience favoured the plaintiff who had completed performance; accordingly the private caveat must be removed.
16 Aug 2024

MOHAMAD SUFFIAN BIN JANTAN AMAT MISPAR READY CASH SDN BHD

Citation

BA-24NCvC-593-03/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-24NCvC-593-03/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Plaintiff's application dismissed because he failed to prove he is an aggrieved person with a caveatable/registrable interest: his evidence was hearsay, lacked proof of payment and of authority as nominee, and the underlying investor agreements were tainted by unlicensed lending making them void; consequently no serious question to be tried and the balance of convenience did not favour extending the caveat pending trial.
15 Aug 2024

PHANG SIN KIEN PANG SHYIAN JUANG

Citation

JA-24NCvC-599-06/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

JA-24NCvC-599-06/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The court found the Perintah Pentadbiran dan Pembahagian valid and enforceable, the plaintiff is the registered administrator with authority to apply to remove the caveat, and the defendant as residuary beneficiary did not possess a present caveatable interest while administration remained incomplete; accordingly the private caveat over HSM 2680 was not tenable and the plaintiff's application was allowed as to that property.
5 Apr 2024

1. ) Tanjung Rhu Land Sdn Bhd (Penerima dan Pengurus Dilantik) 2. ) Reka Intisari Sdn Bhd (Penerima dan Pengurus Dilantik) 1. ) Kauthar Venture Capital Sdn Bhd 2. ) PENDAFTAR HAKMILIK TANAH & GALIAN KEDAH

Citation

WA-24NCvC-4945-10/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-24NCvC-4945-10/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The 1st Defendant lacked any registrable present interest in the land and therefore had no caveatable interest; its application to adduce further affidavits filed a day before hearing was dismissed as frivolous and prejudicial; the 1st Defendant's caveat was removed, damages under S.329 to be assessed and costs awarded.
15 May 2023

Rimau Indah Sdn Bhd (Dalam Penggulungan) 1. ) Jiwa Rakyat Sdn. Bhd. 2. ) PENDAFTAR HAKMILIK NEGERI SELANGOR

Citation

WA-24NCvC-4398-12/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-24NCvC-4398-12/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Prior High Court orders established the Plaintiff as the registered proprietor and that the transfers to the First Defendant were void ab initio; the First Defendant failed to demonstrate any registrable interest or exception under the National Land Code to justify lodging a caveat; accordingly the private caveat was removed, the First Defendant was prohibited from lodging further caveats, the Second Defendant was not held liable being protected under NLC s22, and costs of RM5,000 were awarded to the Plaintiff.
15 Jul 2022

3Q RESOURCES (M) SDN BHD 1. ) MAGNUM CONSORTIUM SDN BHD 2. ) HONG YEAM WAH

Citation

P-02(IM)(NCvC)-878-07/2020 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Court

IM
Case number

P-02(IM)(NCvC)-878-07/2020 (Mahkamah Rayuan)

The Court of Appeal held the High Court judge erred in striking out the appellant's suit and in ordering removal of the caveat because the pleadings raised substantial triable issues of mixed law and fact (validity of shareholder mandate under s.132C, compliance with an Order for Sale, notice to purchasers affecting bona fide purchaser status, and applicability of s.340(4) NLC). The appellate court found res judicata/issue estoppel did not bar the claims because earlier adverse findings had been reversed or did not finally determine the issues, and therefore the claims warranted a full trial;…
15 Jul 2022

3Q Resources (M) Sdn. Bhd. Solidwin Property Sdn.Bhd

Citation

P-02(NCvC)(A)-899-05/2019 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Court

NCvC
Case number

P-02(NCvC)(A)-899-05/2019 (Mahkamah Rayuan)

The Court of Appeal held the High Court erred in summarily striking out the appellant’s suit because the pleaded claims raised substantial triable issues of mixed law and fact (validity of shareholder mandate, compliance with an Order For Sale, bona fide purchaser status, applicability of s.340(4) NLC) which required a full trial; prior decisions relied upon by the High Court did not operate as res judicata given the Court of Appeal had earlier reversed and remitted aspects of those proceedings. Accordingly the striking-out and caveat-removal orders were set aside and the appeals allowed.
22 Sept 2021

NIK SALMAN BIN NIK DIN (NO. K/P: 851202-03-5777) 1. AMINUDIN BIN SULAIMAN (NO. K/P: 640714-03-5703) 2. WAN MUHAMMAD MUKHLIS BIN WAN ABDUL KUDUS (NO. K/P: 950223-03-6043)

Citation

DA-24NCvC-288-11/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

DA-24NCvC-288-11/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The court held the plaintiff's remedies seeking transfer/registration of title and sale are outside the statutory scheme of s281/s322 because s281(2) mandates that a lienholder must first obtain judgment for the debt before seeking sale or analogous relief; the plaintiff had no judgment and sought transfers not authorized by the National Land Code. Separately, the claim to remove the 2018 private caveat failed because the originating summons did not specify the statutory basis (eg s327 NLC) as required by the rules of court, a substantive failure that prejudiced defendants.
12 Dec 2019

TAY SENG YONG 1. ) HENG SHU HUI 2. ) TAN MENG KEOW

Citation

JA-24NCVC-514-08/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

JA-24NCVC-514-08/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Applicant established equitable entitlement by full payment of purchase price and thus was an aggrieved person under s327 NLC; 1st Respondent failed to prove a caveatable interest (no evidence of deposit payment or completed loan and his S&P post‑dated Applicant's S&P), therefore the statutory declaration for the caveat was insufficient and the caveat must be removed.