Private caveat

Ainul Jaria Maidin 1
PRIVATE CAVEAT

Introduction
♦ PC referred as a general or personal
caveat
♦ Entered on RDT to any land by
Registrar upon application by persons
seeking to protect the title or
interest they are trying to protect or
establish.

Meaning of Caveat
♦ caveat is likened to an injunction that is
aimed at keeping the disputed property in
status quo.
♦ Syed Agil Barakbah in Damodaran v
Vasudeva [1974] 1 MLJ 128, at p.129 said
that:
♦ “a caveat is nothing more than a statutory
injunction to keep the property in status
quo until the court has had an opportunity
of discovering what are the right of the
parties…”

Meaning of caveat…
♦ It’s general process is to suspend the
process of registration until
conflicting claims have been settled.
♦ It is a unilateral act and no person
can create rights in his own favour
nor enlarge or add to his existing
proprietary rights by means of a
caveat.”

♦ Miller v Minister of Mines [1963] 1
AER 109, Lord Guest at p.103
♦ “an interim procedure designed to
freeze the position until an
opportunity had been given to a
person claiming a right to an
unregistered instrument to regularise
the position by registering the
instrument.”

Effect of Private Caveat
S.322(2) & (3) NLC

♦ Effect of private caveat is to bind the land
itself or a particular interest in the land.

♦ Private caveat is effective as a
temporary injunction & effect of:
♦ i) preventing registration of any
dealings including a certificate of sale
on the land
♦ ii) preventing entry of Lien- Holders
Caveat
♦ iii) preventing endorsement of
Tenancy exempt granted by
registered proprietor

Exceptions
♦ However, S.322(5)(a) & (b) NLC provides
Private Caveat shall not prohibit the
registration or endorsement of any
instrument or claim where:
♦ i. instrument was presented or application
for endorsement was made by the person
or body at whose instance the caveat was
entered; or
♦ ii. the instrument is accompanied by a
consent in writing from the caveator
consenting to the registration of the
instrument

♦ Macon Engineers Sdn. Bhd. v Goh Hooi
Yin [1976] 2 MLJ 53 Gill CJ, p.55.
♦ “the effect of a caveat is that no
instrument effecting the land can be
registered while it is in force. The
entry of the caveat does not make
the claim or right either better or
worse.”

♦ Wong Kim Poh v Saamah Bt Hj. Kasim
[1987] 1 MLJ 400 at p.402
♦ “so long as a caveat is in force, it shall have
the effect of prohibiting the registration
of any instrument of dealing. The effect of
the Private Caveat expressed to bind the
land itself is to prevent any registered
disposition of the land except with the
caveators consent until the caveat is
removed. In Torrens system registration is
everything, the prohibition of the section
must be complied with. The Registrar is
statutorily obliged to refuse the
registration and if he allows registration,
he is in violation of the express provisions
of the Code.”

♦ In Khaw Poh Chhuan v Ng Gaik Peng
[1996] 1 MLJ 761
♦ “one function of the caveat is to ‘freeze’
the register until the claim being caveated
has been perfected by registration of an
instrument, or it has been adjudicated as
not being entitled to priority by the Court.”
♦ “Another function is to act as an injunction
to the Registrar warning him against
registering subsequent dealings, a
transaction duly registered in violation of a
caveat is without protection of
indefeasibilty of title under s.340 of the
NLC and such a transfer can be challenged
and set aside.”

♦ Eng Mee Yong v Letchumanan [1979] 2
MLJ 212
♦ A private caveat does not have the effect
of altering the ownership of the land or
interest. It merely functions as a notice of
a claim and priority of a claim. There is no
restriction as to the number of caveats
that may be entered on a title. The priority
is accorded according to the order of
endorsement.

Procedures
Entry of Private Caveat
S.324 NLC

♦ Private Caveat is entered by filling in
the prescribed statutory Form 19B
stating expressly whether the Caveat
is to bind the land itself or only a
particular interest in the land.
♦ If the caveat is to bind only a
particular interest in the land, the
Caveator must attach a plan of the
affected area.

♦ Application
♦ Form 19B
♦ supported by a Statutory Declaration
affirmed by person seeking to enter
Caveat (Caveator) and
♦ prescribed fees.

Registrar’s Powers
♦ S.322(1)(a) NLC - Registrar “may” enter
private caveat upon application by persons in
S.323
♦ Registrar in entering a private caveat is
acting purely in administrative capacity.
♦ Registrar is obliged to enter caveat on RDT
to disputed land upon receiving an
application from any person or body.

Registrar has to check if application
is in order as follows:
♦ The statutory form 19B is duly
completed, executed and attested;
♦ Accompanied by a Statutory
Declaration made by the caveator;
♦ Prescribed fees payable to Land
Office.

♦ Upon examining application form,
Registrar is required to ensure that
caveatable interest is clearly shown
on application form
♦ Registrar must make endorsement as
provided in S.324 NLC by specifying:
– Time and Date of Making Entry.

Limited Powers of Registrar
Registrar has no discretion to refuse to
enter a private caveat if it fulfils all
prescribed requirements.
♦ Nanyang Development (1966) Sdn. Bhd. v
How Swee Poh [1970] 1 MLJ 145 Suffian
LP at p.146: “The role of the registrar in
entering the caveat is purely
administrative, he must grant the
application by making the necessary
endorsement on the register.”

Time PC take effect –s.324 NLC
♦ PC is effective form time of receipt
of application and not from time of
endorsement on RDT
♦ PROSPECTIVE not RETROSPECTIVE

Effect of PC on instruments of
dealing – S.322(6) NLC
♦ Registrar must reject instruments
presented for registration if PC is
entered to bind land and will have to
inform parties pursuant to S. 298 or
317 NLC procedures.

♦ Who can Enter PC-s.323(1)(a)(b)&(c)
♦ A person or body can apply to enter a
private caveat if he has a ‘caveatable
interest’:
♦ any person or body claiming title to, or
any registrable interest in, any
alienated land or any right to such title
or interest;

♦ any person or body claiming to be
beneficially entitled under any trust
affecting any such land or interest;
and
♦ guardian or next friend of any minor
claiming to be entitled under any
trust affecting any such land or
interest.

♦ person or body seeking to enter PC must be
parties capable of affecting dealings with
land or interest with land pursuant to:
a.S.43 NLC clearly specifies capacity of
persons allowed to deal with alienated
lands;
b.S.205(2) NLC -persons capable dealing
with land
c.S.433A NLC provision also is relevant in
providing for dealings with Non-citizens.

♦ To be caveatable, the claim must represent a
claim that can lead to the making of a
substantive entry on the register, either
because the interest will become registrable
or because it is one for which equitable
relief by way of specific performance can
be sought to enable ultimate registration. If
the claim does not represent a transaction
capable of potential registration, then the
claim is not caveatable as the caveat
procedure.

♦ A personal claim, enforceable against
proprietor and not land, cannot be caveated.
♦ There is a distinction between an in
personam interest which is purely personal
and which cannot by court relief bind the
land, and an in rem or in personam and ad
rem interest which can bind the land
without the need to resort to court
assistance.

♦ “any person or body claiming title to, or any
registerable interest in any alienated land.”
♦ First limb ‘any right to such title and interest’ refers
to the interest which can be caveated is that of a
person claiming to have an unregistrable interest, that
is a claim which is in its present form capable of
causing a substantive entry to be made on the register.
♦ Claimant does not have an instrument in a registerable
form.
♦ 'title in alienated land' refer to statutory or legal estate
and illustrate that claimant expects to become
proprietor of land on completion of transaction behind
the caveated claim.

♦ It is an interest which is supported by
consideration and it results from the entry
into a valid and enforceable contract of sale;
alternatively, the right comes from a
completed gift, or a perfectly constituted
trust, or by way of succession

Second limb that is worded as “any
right to such title or interest”
This refers to interest which can be caveated
under this heading is that of the claimant who
has an unregistrable interest, i.e. a claim which
is not in its present form capable of causing a
substantive entry to be made on the register.
Eg. claimant does not have an instrument in
registrable form, or it is unclear whether his
interest would be registrable, and so on.

claim must represent a claim that can lead to
making of a substantive entry on register, either
because the interest will become registrable or because
it is one for which equitable relief by way of specific
performance can be sought to enable ultimate
registration.
If claim does not represent a transaction capable of
potential registration, then claim is not caveatable as
caveat procedure is actually an interim procedure
designed to freeze register until an opportunity has
been given to a person claiming a right under an
unregistered instrument to regularize position by
registering instrument.

♦ Failure to fulfil requirements, and
even in circumstances where parties
have a caveatable claim, PC cannot be
retained and can be removed by:
♦ Registrar -S.326 NLC
♦ By Court - S.327 NLC

♦ To be caveatable, the claim must
represent a claim that can lead to the
making of a substantive entry on the
register, either because the interest
will become registrable or because it
is one for which equitable relief by
way of specific performance can be
sought to enable ultimate
registration.

♦ If the claim does not represent a
transaction capable of potential
registration, then CLAIM is not caveatable
♦
♦ A personal claim, enforceable against the
proprietor and not the land, cannot be
caveated.

♦ distinction between an in personam
interest which is purely personal and
which cannot bind land without court
order

♦ EM Buxton & Anor v Packaging Specialists
Sdn Bhd [1987] 1 MLJ 342 at 344
♦ Caveator agreed to buy caveated land but
defaulted, resulting forfeiture of deposit.
♦ caveator refused to continue because 56%
of land is subejct to land acquisition
♦ it denied the right of vendor to forfeit
deposit and wanted refund.
♦ Proprietor to remove PC saying that
caveator had no caveatable interest
caveator claimed that although his interest
was an unsecured debt, it had arisen out of a
land transaction and so should be caveatable.

♦ However, the caveator was '... seeking
a refund of deposit paid to account and
other sums alleged to have been
incurred.
♦ It is not claiming specific performance
of agreement and by so doing, caveator
has clearly shown an intention that it
was no longer interested in purchasing
the property ... .

♦ To that end, it cannot be said that it had
any interest in the land capable of being
registered.
♦ From the nature of the civil suit, the
caveator has only a claim in personam
against the proprietor for which a caveat is
not the proper remedy as a means of
protecting such a claim.
♦ Such claim originated from agreement but
it is not capable of being registered under
Torrens system'.

♦ S.323(1)(a) NLC - is construed as
referring to two different circumstances
giving rise to caveatable interests
♦ First limb – “any person or body claiming
title to, or any registerable interest in any
alienated land.”
♦ situation where claimant has unregistrable
interest. However, the claim in its present
form is capable of causing a substantive
entry be entered in RDT title.
♦ Unregistered BUT Registrable interest or
title

♦ Second limb - any right to such title
or interest.
♦ This is a situation where a claimant
has an unregistrable interest. The
claim in its present form is not
capable of causing a substantive
entry be entered in the register
document of title.
♦ Unregistered and unregistrable title
or interest.

♦ A caveatable interest exists if there is a
right to title or registrable interests in
land where the holder of such right
acquires immediate right or a right, which
will arise upon completion of registration of
dealing.
♦ E.g. A purchaser of a land who has paid full
purchase price and obtained a registrable
memorandum of transfer (Form 14A) and the
original issue document of title to the said land.
His interest is not available only for failure to
register and the mere act of registration only can
grant him the right.

♦ Krishna Kumar v UMBC Bhd [1983] 1 MLJ
106, proprietor charged land for funds for
benefit of companies of which he was MD.
♦ On default, a 3rd party agreed to provide
additional security, subject to consent of 1st
chargee.
♦ However, consent was refused on basis
that the second chargee had delayed in
sending the documents to the first
chargee. The second chargee then
caveated the land.

♦ Goo Hee Sing v Will Raja & Anor [1993] 3
MLJ 610
♦ Permission of State Authority was
necessary to enable vendor to sell; as this
had not been received, it was held that
potential purchaser had no valid contract
and thus no registrable or caveatable
interest.

♦ Second limb - any right to such title
or interest.
♦ Miller v Minister of Mines [1963]
AC 484
♦ “Indeed it is axiomatic” (clear on its
face / self evident) that a personal
claim enforceable only against the
registered proprietor but not the
land cannot be caveated.”

Caveatable interest of
beneficiary under an Express
Trust♦ S.323(1)(b) NLC provides that person or
body claiming to be beneficially entitled
under any trust affecting any such land or
interest may make an application to enter a
private caveat to protect interests in land
held under trust by a trustee. The
beneficiary must show the existence of a
trust affecting the land or interest therein
and that the claimant is beneficially
entitled thereunder, otherwise the entry
of the caveat will not be sustained.

♦ If the beneficiary is a minor, then
the application to enter a caveat can
be made by his guardian or next
friend.
♦ Protection for the minor beneficiary
can also be given by a registrar's
caveat
♦ A trustee can seek to enter a Trust
caveat if the circumstances require
him to prevent any dealings on the
trust property.

♦ PC by beneficiary under express trust
♦ Khoo Teng Seong v Khoo Teng Peng [1990] 3
MLJ 37 at 41, per Lim Beng Choon J. the
caveators were two of several residual
beneficiaries of the testator's land of which
the applicant was the trustee and executor.
It was observed that '... a trustee of
property held in trust as well as a
beneficiary of any trust property is entitled
to enter a caveat.

Whether a Registered
Proprietor can apply to
caveat his own land

♦ Private caveat available to persons or body
specified in S.323 (1) NLC.
♦ A registered proprietor is not a party to a
transaction which seeks to confer title to
him since he cannot prove the existence of
a claim he has against his own land.
♦ registered proprietor is prohibited from
caveating his own land, unless he can show
the existence of an interest to that arising
beyond his legal proprietorship.

♦ Re An Application by Haupiri Courts
(No.2) [1969] NZLR 353,
♦ a proprietor cannot lodge a caveat
against dealings under the New
Zealand Land transfer Act 1952
merely because he is the registered
proprietor.

♦ EU Finance Bhd v Siland Sdn Bhd (M&J)
Frozen Foods Interveners [1989]1 MLJ
195
♦ a registered owner could not seek to enter a
caveat over his own land because a
registered proprietor is a person who relies
on his status as a registered proprietor
must necessarily be a person already
possessing title or interest in land and not
merely a person claiming title to or any
interest in that land and must as a matter of
logic be excluded by the language of
S.323(1) NLC.

♦ registered proprietor must go
further and establish some set of
circumstances which affirmatively
gives rise to a distinct interest in the
land distinguishable from that which
he holds as registered proprietor.

♦ Syarifah Mastura bte. Tuanku Ibrahim v
Wan Aziz Ibrahim [1994] 3 AMR 38
♦ Abdul Kadir Sulaiman J view that having a
serious issue to be tried in a pending action
does not clothe a person with a caveatable
interest but that it is only relevant when
considering whether a proper and valid
caveat ought to be removed pending the
disposal of the action relating to the
caveat.

♦ Hiap Yiak Trading Sdn Bhd & Ors. v
Hong Soon Seng SB [1990] 2 MLJ 155, a
contrary view - a registered proprietor
may caveat his own land.
♦ A registered proprietor may seek the
discretion of Registrar to enter a
Registrars Caveat.
♦ See Boonsom Boonyanit v Adorna
Properties [1990] 3 MLJ 444;
♦ Lim Ah Hun v Pendaftar Hakimilik Tanah
Pulau Pinang & Anor [1990] 3 MLJ 34

♦ Can a person or body who has an
interest or right on a specific portion
part of a land lodge a private caveat
to protect his interest over such
portion.
♦ Compare provisions of Ss.5 and 214
(1)(a) with S.322(1) NLC.
♦

♦ N. Vangedasalam v Mahadevan & Anor
[1976] 2 MLJ 161
♦ FC – issue whether a person or body who
has an interest or right on a specific
portion part of a land lodge a private
caveat to protect his interest over such
portion.

♦ Appellant had claimed an interest in a
portion in a piece of land and brought
an action for specific performance
against the registered proprietor so
that the portion in question could be
transferred to him.
♦ He had also entered a caveat against
the land. When the registered owner
of the land died, his personal
representatives applied to court to
have caveat removed and trial judge
allowed application.

♦ On appeal to the Federal Court, the court
in allowing the appeal held that a person
who claims an interest in a specific portion
of land may caveat the whole land.
However, he must state expressly that the
effect of his caveat is to cover only the
particular interest claimed.
♦ In 1985, the amendment to S.322 (1)
NLC brought about the additional proviso,
which states that, “provided that such a
caveat shall not be capable of being
entered in respect of part of land.”

♦ Tan Heng Poh v Tan Boon Thong & Ors.
[1992] 2 MLJ 1, the appellant was a
beneficiary of one-sixth share in the
estate of his father who left a will
bequeathing his properties to his six sons.
Dispute arose between the beneficiaries
and pending the resolution of the dispute,
the appellant had entered a private caveat
against all the eight parcels of land in the
estate of the deceased. The respondents
applied to remove the caveat and the trial
judge allowed the application.

♦ Appellant appealed to the Supreme Court
and in dismissing the appeal, Mohammed
Azmi CJ said that by virtue of the
amendment to S. 322(1) of the NLC a
caveat cannot be entered by the Registrar
against any land where the caveator’s
interest is only in respect of a specific
portion even if the application to enter the
caveat expressly provides that the effect
of the caveat is intended to be limited to a
specific portion only. This amendment led
to uncertainties and affected severally the
conveyancing practices especially when
dealing with sale and purchase and also
loans relating to properties, which have yet
to be subdivided.

♦ This was finally settled by the Federal
Court in Chor Phaik Har v Farlim
Properties Sdn Bhd. [1994]3 AMR
41:2103. Edgar Joseph Jr. FCJ referred
to the decision of Suffian LP in N.
Vangedasalam v Mahadevan & Anor
[1976] 2 MLJ 161 said, “true it is that
the proviso to s 322(1) prohibits the entry
of a caveat over part of land, yet it says
nothing about the validity of a caveat over
the whole land but whose effect is limited
to protect claim to a registerable interest
in a portion or an undivided share thereof.”
At present this controversy appears to be
resolved since the proviso to s 322(1) NLC
has been resolved.

♦ The amendment to the Land Code in
Jun 2001 enabled a private caveat
entered over the whole of the land
but expressly specified to bind only a
specific interest in the land to be
permitted statutorily.

Duration or Life Span of
Private Caveat –
S.328(1) NLC

♦ A Private Caveat remains in force for a
period of six (6) years after which
duration the caveat will lapse and cease to
have any effect.
♦ In Goh Keng How v Raja Zainal Abidin bin
Raja Hussin [1995] 3 MLJ 6, observed
that the statutory life of a caveat is six
years, and any decision of the court to
extend the life of the caveat should not do
so for a period greater than the statutory
six years. In considering the extension of
the caveat by the earlier court order, it
was observed that the extension '... would
throw the net wider by extending the
private caveat which was scheduled to
expire by statute (s 328 of Land Code) on

REMOVAL
OF
PRIVATE CAVEATS

♦ Lifespan of a private caveat is for a
period of six years unless it is sooner
withdrawn by the Registrar under s
325 or lapses under s 326(1B) or is
withdrawn by the Registrar pursuant
to an order of the court under s 327.
♦ The High Court has the power to
extend the lifespan of a private
caveat. However, such extension
should not extend beyond the
duration of six years.

♦ In Goh Keng How v Raja Zainal Abidin bin
Raja Hussin [1995] 3 MLJ 6, observed
that the statutory life of a caveat is six
years, and any decision of the court to
extend the life of the caveat should not do
so for a period greater than the statutory
six years. In considering the extension of
the caveat by the earlier court order, it
was observed that the extension '... would
throw the net wider by extending ... the
private caveat which was scheduled to
expire by statute (s 328 of Land Code) on
13 January 1995 to an indefinite term.

♦ Private Caveat can be removed
before expiry of the 6 years in the
following circumstances
♦ S.325 –Withdrawal by Caveator
♦ S.326 –Removal by Registrar
♦ S.327 –Removal by Court

Withdrawal of the PC by
Caveator – s.325
♦ A private Caveat may be withdrawn by the
Caveator at any time by serving a notice in
Form 16G on the Registrar together with
the prescribed fees.
♦ The Registrar upon receipt of the Notice in
Form 16G shall cancel the entry of the
Caveat and note his reasons for the
cancellation and notify the registered
proprietor of the land as prescribed in s
325(2) NLC.

Removal of Private Caveat
by Registrar – S.326 NLC
♦ This right is only available to any person or
body having a registered title or interest in
the land who is aggrieved by the entry of
the caveat entered on the land.
♦ Thus, right is restricted to a Registered
proprietor; Registered chargee; Lessee and
sub-lessee. Tan See Hock v D&C Bank
Bhd. & Anor.[1993] 3 MLJ 350 –it was
held that a chargee who has lost his
interest over the disputed land cannot seek
to remove a caveat by making an application
to the Registrar.

♦ S.326 NLC makes provision for the
registered proprietor of the land or
interest to apply to the Registrar for
removal of the caveat. Section 327 allows a
'person aggrieved' by the existence of the
caveat to apply to the court for its
removal. Under s 326(1), the Registrar
serves notice on the caveator (ss(2)), and
if no action is then taken the caveat lapses
after two months (ss(1B)).
♦ Under s 327, the court makes an
appropriate order and the Registrar
removes the caveat in accordance with the
terms of that order pursuant to s 417;

♦ Application for removal of a private
caveat can be made in Form 19C, by a
person whose title or interest is
affected by the presence of the
caveat. An Application must be made
before the registration of a dealing
by the caveator or by another party
with the consent of the caveator (see
s 322(5)). The application is
unnecessary where the caveat has
lapsed under s 328.

Procedure – S.326 NLC
♦ 1. The caveatee can make an
application in Form 19H accompanied
by the requisite fee. The Registrar
shall cancel the entry of the private
caveat and note the reasons for
cancellation and notify the registered
proprietor of the same.

♦ 2. Registrar will issue a Notice of
Intended Removal of the Private Caveat
in Form 19C to the caveator – informing
him that the private caveat will be
cancelled upon the expiry of 2 months from
the date of service of the Notice on him.
Upon receipt of this notice, the caveator
may apply to the High Court and obtain an
order to sustain the private caveat and
serve the order on the Registrar. The
Registrar in the situation where the
caveator obtains an order for sustaining
the private caveat cannot remove it.

♦ S.326(2)NLC provides that “from time to
time extend the period of 2 months. This
means that the caveator can seek the
courts discretion to extend the caveat
from time to time. This order from the
court granting the extension must be
served on the Registrar who is required to
endorse the register document of title
with the details of the order. Failure to
serve the order of the court on the
registrar within in time, Registrar can
remove the private caveat.
♦ Hong Keow Tee v Alkhared & Khoo
Holdings Sdn. Bhd. [1982] 2 MLJ 42

Rights of Chargee or Interest
Holder to Apply to Registrar to
Remove Private Caveat
♦ The provision use the word ‘interest’ refer
to a registered interest, which would
include a registered charge. As such, this
section can only be utilized by a registered
owner or a person with a registered
interest which would include a registered
chargee;

♦ Unregistered interest holders does
not have the right to seek to apply
to remove the PC.
♦ Tan See Hock v Development &
Commercial Bank [1993] 3 MLJ 250
at p.255, per James Foong J:'in this
case, the first defendant is not a
registered chargee and has no legal
right to proceed by way of this
section [s.326]. By doing so, it would
render the acts of the Registrar
including the issuance of Form 19C
ultra vires.

♦ When such acts are ultra vires, Form
19C has no legal effect on the plaintiff
[proprietor] and the caveats should
remain where they are the Code, has by
itself already determined the life span
of a caveat. The caveats lodged remain
until their life-span expire, under s 328
(unless extended) or until any other
application to have it set aside before
its expiry.'

♦ Ss(1A)-Serve upon the person or
body the notice in Form 19C. It was
held in Alagarsamy v Tai Phaik Kee
[1992] 1 MLJ 665, that service of
Form 19C notice need not be personal,
the special provisions of s431
regarding the mode of service of
notices can be invoked.

♦ In this case the registered proprietor (as a
personal representative of the deceased
proprietor) contracted to sell the land to
the caveator; the caveat was entered. It
was then withdrawn by the caveator. The
parties again contracted, and again a
caveat was entered. The registered
proprietor then applied to the Registrar to
cancel the second caveat, claiming defects
in the contract.
♦ The Registrar issued notice in Form 19C
which was served at the caveator's
residence on an adult member of the
caveator's family.

♦ The Registrar removed the second caveat.
The caveator then entered a third caveat on
grounds similar to those of the second
caveat. The proprietor then applied under s
329(2) for its removal.
♦ The caveator in that action claimed that he
had no actual knowledge of the Form 19C.
However, the court said that service in the
manner achieved was adequate; in the
circumstances, as the second caveat had
been removed by the Registrar, s.329(2) did
operate to prevent a further caveat on the
same or similar grounds.

♦ The fact that the title to Form 19C
was omitted from the Gazette
Notification (under s 432(1)(b)) was
of no consequence as such
notification itself stated that notice
to cancel the caveat was being given;
see Diljit Kaur Puran Singh v
Pentadbir Tanah Gombak & Ors
[1999] 1 CLJ 883 (HC).

From time to time extend the
said period of two months.
♦ Where the caveator wishes to object to the
removal of the caveat, he can apply to the court
for an extension of the two-month period, bearing
in mind that there can be successive actions but
that all actions must be made within the extended
period.
♦ This proposition was recognised in the case of
Ding Poi Kooi v Nazaruddin bin Sahie [1999] 6
MLJ 274 (HC) where the court held that the word
'extend' merely enlarges or gives further duration
to any existing right rather than re-vests an
expired right.

♦ When the court grants the extension, the order is
served on the Registrar who is required to endorse
the register with the details of that order. This
application does not test the validity or
'caveatability' of the claim protected, but is merely
designed to extend the time for retention of the
caveat on the register.
♦ In considering whether the caveat should be
extended, the court will look to any other action
taken by the caveator; for example, if the caveator
is seeking specific performance of an agreement
between himself and the proprietor, the court
would be more likely to extend the time than
where the caveator merely applies for extension.

♦ In Hong Keow Tee & Anor v Alkhared & Khoo
Holdings Sdn. Bhd.[1982]2 MLJ 42 at p.43, per
Arulanandom J, it was observed that by the
provisions of this subsection, '... it is incumbent on
any person on whose application the caveat is
extended to serve the order of court on the
Registrar of Titles, who on being duly served is
enjoined not to remove the said caveat'. In this
case, the caveators obtained a court order
extending the time for removal but failed to serve
it on the Registrar in time to prevent removal of
the caveat.

♦ As a result they were unable to enter another
caveat on the same ground. Where the only parties
to an application under s 327 below are the
caveatee and caveator, there is no difference
between what the caveator must establish to obtain
an extension of the caveat under s 326 and what he
must establish to defeat the caveatee's application
for removal of the caveat under s 327 below; see
Eng Mee Yong v Letchumanan; & Federal Jaya
Sdn Bhd v Darus Din [1999] 1 CLJ 518 at p. 524
(HC).

Private caveat

More Related Content

What's hot

More from Hafizul Mukhlis

Recently uploaded

Private caveat