The appellant gave the respondent an option to purchase land that was to be exercised within a stipulated period. The respondent exercised the option on time but the appellant refused to proceed. The respondent lodged a caveat on the land and filed a court case seeking specific performance or damages. The court granted an ex parte extension of the caveat. The appellant argued the extension was wrong and the respondent had no interest in the land. The court dismissed the appeal, finding the option was validly exercised so the respondent had a caveatable interest.

1. OOppttiioonn ttoo ppuurrcchhaassee:: CCaavveeaattaabbllee iinntteerreesstt
HHuussnnaa bbiinnttii RRoossllaanndd
NNuurr FFaarrhhaannaa bbiinnttii AAbbdduull KKaarriimm

2. Parties involve
  Court: appeal
 Judge: Syed Othman J
 Appellant : vendor ( Sing Lian Express Sdn Bhd)
 Respondant: Soh Kim Tee (purchaser)
The sale of the company's land, held under Certificate of Title 989, Lot
No. 2922 and measuring 118 acres 1 rood 10 poles, for $8,000 per acre.
Prima facie case: extension of the period of the caveat

3. Summary of the issue

Appellant upon r eceipt of $1000 f r om t he
Respondent gave an option to be
exercised wit hin a st ipulat ed per iod. The
r espondent did exer cised t he opt ion, but
however , t he appellant r ef used t o cont inue
wit h t he agr eement . Lat er , r espondent
ent er int o caveat f or t he said land and
f iled an act ion against appellant f or
specif ic performance and alt er nat ively,
damages f or br each of cont r act . Plus,
r espondent made a successf ul ex parte
applicat ion f or t he caveat t o be ext ended.
The company caused

4. Time frame
14th Nov. 1972 On receipt of $1000, A gave option to R to be exercised by 30th Nov. 1972
15th Nov. 1972 Option exercised. Offered to pay 10% deposit ($94,000) and ask the

managing director of the company to sign a draft agreement. It was refused.
30th Nov. 1972 Stipulated time for the option end.
9th Dec. 1972 Caveat was lodged by R against the land. Plus, court action for specific
performance and damages for breach of contract.
20th Jan. 1973 Company (A) caused a noticed of intended removal of the caveat issued by
the Registrar of Titles. Johore. (S.326; NLC) -> serve to R
24th Jan. 1973 R made application ex parte for the caveat to be extended until the final
disposal of the court action.
14th Feb. 1973 The caveat was extended.
Note: The circumstances clearly required that
the court should act ex parte and the court did so

5. Grounds for appellant

 2 grounds
1) The court was wrong in having issued the caveat ex
parte, as the company had not been given an
opportunity of being heard before the grant of the
extension
2) The respondent is not a person entitled to claim title
to or a registrable interest in the land

6. Judgement of the court

1st Ground
1) The company had refused the exercise of the option
within the specified time in option.
2) The application first came before the court on 12th
Feb 1973, few days left before the expiry of the
period of one month allowed by Section 326(1)(b) of
the Code for the notice of intended removal of the
caveat.

7. 
2nd Ground
1)Document is an inchoate agreement and it becomes
complete only upon the signing of a formal agreement.
2)The respondent gave an irrevocable proof of his
willingness to purchase the land.

8. Conclusion

 Application dismissed.
 The option was valid, thus the respondent has a
caveatable interest on the land.

9. Opinion

 Option once valid cannot be revoked within the time stipulated.
 Option once exercised by the purchaser within the stipulated
time become valid thus give rise to caveatable interest on that
land.
 Removal of caveat cannot be done before the expiry period of
one month notice. ( S 326). However, the aggrieved party if any,
may argue by way of Section 327 of the Code.

10. Opinion

 Option once valid cannot be revoked within the time stipulated.
 Option once exercised by the purchaser within the stipulated
time become valid thus give rise to caveatable interest on that
land.
 Removal of caveat cannot be done before the expiry period of
one month notice. ( S 326). However, the aggrieved party if any,
may argue by way of Section 327 of the Code.