Jayadeep Hari & JamilJayadeep Hari & JamilJayadeep Hari & JamilJayadeep Hari & Jamil
  • About
  • Our People
    • Partners
    • Consultant
    • Associates
  • Practice Areas
  • Publications
    • Legal Updates
    • Legal Cauldron (Temporary suspended)
    • Articles
    • News & Bulletin
  • We Care
  • Careers
  • Contact Us

Legal Update 2 of 2021

    Home Legal Updates Legal Update 2 of 2021
    NextPrevious

    Legal Update 2 of 2021

    By jhj admin | Legal Updates | 0 comment | 26 January, 2021 | 0

    Which takes precedence? Is it the contents of an agreement which state who owns the property or the contents of the register document of title?

    Case:

    LEONG WAI CHOONG & ORS v. MAH GUAT ENG & ANOR [2020] 1 LNS 1142

    Brief Facts:

    • A property held under an individual title in Kuala Lumpur (“Property”) was originally registered in the name of the late Thong Ah Chan as a sole proprietor (“Mother”).

     

    • However, before her passing, Mother had transferred her share in the Property to her 4 sons, Leong Kuen Hong @ Leong Kuen Ho (“Son 1”), Leong Kuan Tan @ Leong Ah Koon (“Son 2”), Leong Keng Fook (“Son 3”) and Leong Kuen Wai (“Son 4”).

     

    • The 4 siblings had in 1977 decided to construct a 4-storey building with a mezzanine floor on the Property.

     

    • Later, on 10 June 1980, the 4 siblings entered into an agreement (“1980 Agreement”) in which they acknowledged that they were the registered proprietors of the Property and that each of them shall be the registered owner of the building as follows:

    (a) Ground floor and mezzanine floor – Son 1;

    (b) 1st Floor – Son 4;

    (c) 2nd Floor – Son 3; and

    (d) 3rd Floor – Son 2.

     

    • The 1980 Agreement also provides that all of them agreed to pay whatever monies due to the government in terms of quit rent, assessment and other out going in respect of the said building on the Property “according to their value of shares”.

     

    • However, the 1980 Agreement was not reflected on the register document of title.

     

    • Sons 1, 2 and 3 had all passed on except Son 4. Following their demise, the administrators for the estate of Sons 2 and 3 together with Son 4 (“Majority”) and the widow and executor of Son 1 (and their child) (“Minority”) became co-proprietors of the Property.

     

    • The Majority had proposed to the Minority to sell the Property or alternatively, the Minority to purchase their share of the Property at a price to be mutually agreed but there was no response from the Minority.

     

    • Therefore, the Majority initiated a suit at the High Court seeking for, amongst others, a declaration that the parties’ co-proprietorship is terminated and the Property be sold at market value with the proceeds divided according to the shares held under the title by the parties.

     

    • The High Court dismissed the case on the basis that the Minority acquired an “indefeasible right” to the ground and mezzanine floors of the Property based on the 1980 Agreement.

     

    • The Majority thus appealed to the Court of Appeal.

    COURT OF APPEAL DECISION – APPEAL ALLOWED!

    • The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and found in favour of the Majority on the basis that the 1980 Agreement was merely a contractual arrangement to regulate outgoings and income derived from the Property.

     

    • To hold that the Minority acquired an “indefeasible right” to the ground and mezzanine floors of the Property from the 1980 Agreement contradicts the register document of title.

     

    • The register document of title and the issue document of title show that the Property remains as undivided shares and the parties hold them as co-proprietors.

     

    • The Majority and Minority are registered as co-proprietors holding undivided share in the Property and not designated floors of the Property.
    No tags.

    jhj admin

    More posts by jhj admin

    Related Post

    • Legal Update 9 of 2020

      By jhj admin | 0 comment

      Can a civil servant be dismissed from employment by a local authority without affording him the right to be heard? Case: PIHAK BERKUASA TATATERTIB MAJLIS PERBANDARAN SEBERANG PERAI & ANOR v. MUZIADI MUKHTAR [2020] 1Read more

    • Legal Update 10 of 2020

      By jhj admin | 0 comment

      Can the payment of quit rent, assessment rates, electricity and water bills be used to prove ownership of property? Case: HS REALTY SDN BHD v. YOW HONG SOON [2020] 1 LNS 230 Brief Facts: HSRead more

    • Legal Update 11 of 2020

      By jhj admin | 0 comment

      Can accused persons who are convicted of disobeying the Movement Control Order appeal for alternative punishment instead of imprisonment in the interest of justice? Case: CHIN CHEE WEI & ANOR V PP [2020] 1 LNSRead more

    • Legal Update 12 of 2020

      By jhj admin | 0 comment

      Can a foreign national have a permanent contract of employment? Case: AHMAD ZAHRI MIRZA ABDUL HAMID v. AIMS CYBERJAYA SDN BHD [2020] 1 LNS 494 Brief Facts: Ahmad, an expatriate, received a letter of appointmentRead more

    • Legal Update 13 of 2020

      By jhj admin | 0 comment

      Can the giving of legal advice by an adjudged bankrupt, whose practising certificate has been suspended, amount to practising law in contravention of the Legal Profession Act 1976? Case: DARSHAN SINGH KHAIRA v. ZULKEFLI HASHIMRead more

    • Legal Update 14 of 2020

      By jhj admin | 0 comment

      Can individual parcel owners enforce rights relating to common property on their own behalf? Case: SYARIKAT EAST COAST & ORS v. MAKNA MUJUR SDN BHD & ORS [2020] 2 MLRA 440 Brief Facts: Syarikat EastRead more

    • Legal Update 15 of 2020

      By jhj admin | 0 comment

      When is the point of time when a debtor is considered to be unable to pay his debts? Case: AFFIN BANK BERHAD V. ABU BAKAR ISMAIL [2020] 2 MLRA 99 Brief Facts: Affin Bank BerhadRead more

    • Legal Update 16 of 2020

      By jhj admin | 0 comment

      Whether an article containing allegations of corrupt practices and giving of bribes was defamatory to the owner of an education institution? Case: EAGLE ONE INVESTMENT LTD & ORS V. ASIA PACIFIC HIGHER LEARNING SDN BHDRead more

    Leave a Comment

    Cancel reply

    Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

    NextPrevious

    JHJ Bulletin

    • S.Jeyaraman: The Magic of Memory
    • Andreas Dorn: Your Unconscious Mind on Change and Money

    Legal Updates

    • Legal Update 22 of 2022
    • Legal Update 21 of 2022
    • Legal Update 20 of 2022
    • Legal Update 19 of 2022
    • Legal Update 18 of 2022
    • Legal Update 17 of 2022
    • Legal Update 16 of 2022

    Legal Cauldron

    • 2
      0

      Legal Cauldron 1 of 2016

      Click here to view & download
    • 2
      0

      Legal Cauldron 2 of 2015

      Click here to view & download
    Copyright 2017 All Rights Reserved Contact Us         Like & Follow Us On:Facebook | Instagram | LinkedIn Disclaimer | Privacy Policy
    • About
    • Our People
      • Partners
      • Consultant
      • Associates
    • Practice Areas
    • Publications
      • Legal Updates
      • Legal Cauldron (Temporary suspended)
      • Articles
      • News & Bulletin
    • We Care
    • Careers
    • Contact Us
    Jayadeep Hari & Jamil