Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Proprietary estoppel

Legal area

Court

24 Sept 2025

1. ) Tey Chin Soon 2. ) Tey Chin Hui 3. ) Tey Chin Pei 4. ) Gan Mui Eng @ Gan Pin 1. ) Tey Chin Hong 2. ) Tan Yook Hua

Citation

JA-22NCvC-186-12/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

JA-22NCvC-186-12/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The Court applied Order 18 r.19 ROC and relevant authorities and struck out those averments that were scandalous, frivolous, vexatious, disclosed no reasonable cause of action or were res judicata or concerned events after the deceased's death that could not form part of the estate; conversely, allegations of proprietary estoppel, contribution to assets and the substantive counterclaims disclosed triable issues and could not be struck out at interlocutory stage.
28 Nov 2024

N.ANJALADEEVI A/P NARAYANAN KALIMUTHU A/L RAJAMANIKAM

Citation

BD-A52-3-03/2023 (Mahkamah Sesyen)
Court

Sessions Court
Case number

BD-A52-3-03/2023 (Mahkamah Sesyen)

Plaintiff proved purchase, payment and title; Plaintiff discharged burden of proof that she is registered owner and Defendant occupied without lawful permission; Defendant failed to prove deceased funded the purchase, failed to prove payment for renovations, and failed to establish proprietary estoppel or equitable tenancy; therefore Plaintiff entitled to vacant possession and Defendant's counterclaim is dismissed.
21 Mar 2024

OMAR BIN AYUB 1. ) ANUAR BIN AYUB 2. ) SITI ZABEDAH BINTI AYUB 3. ) ABDUL RAHMAN BIN AYUB 4. ) HASMAH BINTI AYUB 5. ) SITI RAHMAH BINTI AYOUB 6. ) SITI FARIDAH BINTI AYUB

Citation

BA-22NCvC-39-02/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-22NCvC-39-02/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Plaintiff failed to prove any statutory vitiating factor to overcome the defendants' registered indefeasible title; the PA is ineffective as an irrevocable instrument because it lacks valuable consideration and contains no fixed term; even if valid, a power of attorney does not divest the donor of the ability to transfer the property; proprietary estoppel not established; defendants' counterclaim fails for want of locus and on the evidence (withdrawals alleged to be gifts).
27 Dec 2023

TEY BOON KIANG NG YAN SIANG @ NG SIEW LIAN

Citation

JA-12B-3-01/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

JA-12B-3-01/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The appeal was dismissed because the trial court correctly found Ramli had transferred his entire undivided 1/2 share (so s.214(1)(b) was not breached), the respondent was the registered owner, the appellant failed to prove consent or rebut the uncontradicted land survey evidence that the Shophouses were on the respondent's plots, and proprietary estoppel was not established.
31 Jul 2023

1. ) EOW BOON HEOW 2. ) EOW BOON HIN 3. ) PEH LEAN HONG 1. ) TANG CHANG HOI @ TANG CHIANG TEIK 2. ) YEOH FONG KOON 3. ) YEOH HOOI CHONG

Citation

KA-24NCvC-85-03/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

KA-24NCvC-85-03/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Plaintiffs satisfied s145 NLC prerequisites by giving notice and producing a credible surveyor's plan and valuation demonstrating equal market values; defendants failed to present a viable alternative plan or cogent technical evidence to displace the valuation; proprietary estoppel was not established for the tenant due to absence of representation and reliance; accordingly the court ordered termination of co‑ownership and physical partition per plaintiffs' plan, but held plaintiffs liable for partition‑related costs because they proposed and implemented the unilateral plan.
19 Apr 2023

VADIVELU A/L THANKAVELOO XXXX

Citation

BA-22NCvC-136-03/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-22NCvC-136-03/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

On the balance of probabilities the court accepted the contemporaneous deed of trust (P1/P3) and power of attorney (P2) together with plaintiff's long occupation and payment as creating an equitable proprietary interest and constructive trust in favour of the plaintiff; contemporaneous documents and attesting solicitor testimony outweighed the later non-contemporaneous PA (D4); relief granted including declaration of beneficial ownership, injunction, order to transfer and costs.
27 Apr 2022

KEPONG DEVELOPMENT SDN BHD NG BEE WAN (NO. KP: 760811-14-5898) SEBAGAI PEGAWAI AWAM BAGI PERSATUAN PENGANUT HOCK SUI TONG KEPONG KUALA LUMPUR

Citation

WA-22NCvC-630-08/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-22NCvC-630-08/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Defendant is not a mere squatter but a licensee coupled with equity because Plaintiff and its predecessor acquiesced to decades of occupation, gave assurances through the deceased director, and the Defendant relied and expended money and labour to its detriment; accordingly Plaintiff is entitled to vacant possession but only after satisfying the Defendant's equitable rights, and the Defendant must vacate by 01.02.2023 subject to its equity being honoured.
14 Dec 2021

ABDUL LATIFF BIN PUTEH & 347 YANG LAIN 1. ) Pentadbir Tanah Jajahan Pasir Mas 2. ) Kerajaan Negeri Kelantan

Citation

D-01(IM)(NCvC)-261-05/2021 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Court

IM
Case number

D-01(IM)(NCvC)-261-05/2021 (Mahkamah Rayuan)

Trees planted by appellants on unalienated state land became part of the land under section 5 of the National Land Code; appellants held no proprietary or equitable interest in the trees because there was no alienation, contract or pleaded estoppel, therefore tort and unjust enrichment causes of action against the State are unsustainable and the appeal is dismissed.
14 Jul 2021

Rokiah binti Amat 1. ) Pembangunan Tanah dan Perumahan Sdn Bhd 2. ) Syed Husain bin Junid

Citation

NO. J-02(NCVC)(W)-1586-08/2018 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Court

NCVC
Case number

NO. J-02(NCVC)(W)-1586-08/2018 (Mahkamah Rayuan)

Appeal allowed in part: appellant had locus standi via ex parte substitution and evidence supported that 1st respondent acknowledged deceased's proprietary interest and took steps to effect transfer such that a constructive trust and estoppel arose against 1st respondent; cause of action was for recovery of land and within 12-year limitation; documents and oral admissions of 2nd respondent supported findings against 1st respondent; however claim against 2nd respondent dismissed because he had no beneficial interest and nemo dat applied; reliefs are limited by subsequent registered transfer of…