Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Section 145 national land code

Legal area

Court

25 Aug 2025

ZAHRAH @ MAKALTHOM BINTI MAT ALI 1. ) MEK BINTI ISMAIL 2. ) MOHAMMAD BIN ISMAIL 3. ) NORAHSIAH BINTI ISMAIL 4. ) PETIMAH @ FATIMAH BINTI ISMAIL 5. ) RUHANI BINTI ISMAIL 6. ) SAI'DI BIN ISMAIL 7. ) MERIYAM BINTI DERAMAN 8. ) Pentadbir Tanah

Citation

DA-24NCvC-460-11/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

DA-24NCvC-460-11/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The court exercised its discretion under s145 NLC and found the plaintiff's plan (Exhibit ZMA-2) to be fair, preserve registered shares and existing holdings, and provide the required lawful access as conditioned by MPKB; the defendants' plan (Exhibit SI-3) lacked a required access solution and was therefore incomplete and unfair; accordingly the court ordered partition according to the plaintiff's plan.
15 Aug 2024

1. ) TAN KIM CHONG @ TAN KIM HUAT 2. ) TAN SAI PENG@TAN KIT HO (Sebagai Pemegang Kuasa Wakil No. 1038/05 yang didaftarkan di Mahkamah Tinggi Taiping pada 6/12/2015) 3. ) Lean Mah Holding Sdn Bhd KANG CHOON KEAT

Citation

PA-22NCvC-73-03/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

PA-22NCvC-73-03/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The Partition Agreement and irrevocable Power of Attorney remained valid because the delay was caused by external events (land acquisitions, issuance of final title, death of surveyor) and the co-proprietors continued conduct (payment of quit rent, no rescission) showed consent; the Defendant refused to join or consent to partition so s.145 NLC applies; the Draft Plan based on registered shares was appropriate and not prejudicial; accordingly the Plaintiffs satisfied s.145 NLC and the court granted termination of the co-proprietorship and consequential orders, with costs awarded to Plaintiffs.
27 Feb 2024

KUMARADEVAN RAJADEVAN JEEVAMALAR A/P KUMARASUBRAMANIAM

Citation

WA-24NCvC-5294-11/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-24NCvC-5294-11/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Plaintiff, as registered co‑proprietor, is entitled to apply under s145 NLC; facts demonstrate an irretrievable breakdown and impasse making sale necessary or expedient under O.31 ROC 2012 read with s25 CJA para 3; no Family Court order restrains sale; therefore order for sale by public auction is appropriate and just, with costs to the plaintiff.
21 Aug 2023

Sarinah binti Jabil 1. ) Borhan bin Abdul Wahab 2. ) Idris bin Wahab 3. ) Jaba bin Wahab 4. ) Rohana binti Wahab 5. ) Saria'ah binti Abdul Wahab 6. ) Selamah binti Abdul Wahab 7. ) Yang binti Wahab 8. ) Pentadbir Tanah Daerah Bera

Citation

CB-24NCvC-105-09/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

CB-24NCvC-105-09/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Plaintiff, as registered owner of one-half share, is entitled to seek termination of co-proprietorship in court under section 145 NLC where application at the Land Office failed due to lack of consent by other co-proprietors; caveat emptor did not bar plaintiff because there was no evidence plaintiff failed to inspect or otherwise neglected duties when purchasing; the court will not compel plaintiff to accept the defendants' settlement proposal; accordingly the court allowed the plaintiff's application (KM1) with costs in the cause.
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.
20 Apr 2023

1. ) RI'ZUAN BIN ABDULLAH 2. ) ROSLAN BIN ABDULLAN 3. ) SITI ZABEDAH BINTI ABDULLAH 4. ) ROSIDAH BINTI ABDULLAH 5. ) ROZITA BINTI ABDULLAH 6. ) ROSLIZA BINTI ABDULLAH 7. ) MUHAMMAD SAIFUL BIN OTHMAN 8. ) MOHD EFENDI BIN OTHMAN 9. ) NURHIDAY

Citation

PA-22NCvC-119-08/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

PA-22NCvC-119-08/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The plaintiffs' proposed partition was unjust and inequitable because it failed to account for existing occupied structures (notably D7's long‑standing house) and was prepared without proper consultation with co‑proprietors; accordingly the court dismissed the plaintiffs' action and, for lack of evidence as to fact and quantum, dismissed the defendants' counterclaim; costs of RM5,000 awarded to defendants.
4 Apr 2023

1. ) ABDUL RAZAK BIN ABU BAKAR 2. ) MAZNAH BINTI ABU BAKAR 3. ) NORIAH BINTI ABU BAKAR 4. ) JAMILAH BINTI ABU BAKAR 5. ) RUHAYA BINTI ABU BAKAR 6. ) ROHANI BINTI ABU BAKAR 7. ) AYU BINTI ABU BAKAR ROHANA BINTI ABU BAKAR

Citation

JB-24NCvC-64-03/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

JB-24NCvC-64-03/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Applicants satisfied the precondition in s.145(1)(a) by serving solicitors' notice and receiving refusal; respondent failed to produce evidence or a counter-proposal to justify refusal; balancing the facts and equities the court properly exercised its discretion to order termination of co-proprietorship and permit partition under s.145(1) NLC; objections about location, unequal value and development impacts were unsubstantiated and insufficient to defeat the application.
8 Apr 2021

FARIDAH BINTI MD. LAZIM (as the lawful holder of the Power of Attorney to AHMAD BIN ADAM) (as the lawful Administrator to the estate of ABDUL GHANI BIN MOHAMED DON (Deceased)

Citation

JB-24NCVC-410-11/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

JB-24NCVC-410-11/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Plaintiff possessed locus standi as holder of a valid Power of Attorney for the majority share and no evidence of actual fraud or other exception to indefeasibility was shown; the Court has power under s.145 NLC to order subdivision and to authorize persons to sign requisite subdivision documents on behalf of non-cooperating co-proprietor; accordingly the originating summons for subdivision was allowed and the application to strike out was dismissed.