Julaika Bivi v Mydin and Mohamed v Kunji Mohidin

Julaika Bivi v Mydin

The plaintiff is a holder of a temporary occupancy permit. In the statement of claim, the plaintiff
alleged that the defendant had illegally occupied a house on the land, and applied to the court for
recovery of the property and damages for infringement, costs and incidental damages. Temporary
occupation licences in the plaintiff, the defendant hold part of the housing property, and the defendant
is under the former temporary occupancy licence holders agree to hold the house. The accused
pleaded that he was in possession of property.

Mohamed v Kunji Mohidin

The plaintiff is a temporary occupation permit holder, the license will be a piece of land on a small
piece of land for residential land, and from the land of the 4 tree picking coconut license. Since then,
the defendant temporary occupancy licence on the land, only the purposes of poultry. The defendant
came to the land, cut down 16 coconut palms, 4 rambutan tree, 4 jackfruit trees and 2 guava trees. The
plaintiff was awarded 2,000 dollars by way of damages for trespass in the Sessions Court and against
this judgment the defendant appealed.

The Held of the cases

Julaika Bivi v Mydin
In the case of a tort, an eviction action will be brought by the holder of a temporary occupation permit
against the infringer. Although compared with the original holders of temporary occupation permit,
when he entered the possession, the defendant will never become the intruder, and compared with the
plaintiff, as the previous ownership under the consent of the holder is cancelled and issue a new
temporary occupation permit, he is an intruder. Even if the defendant is not a trespasser, the plaintiff
has the right to recover the possession and intermediate interest based on the facts, and the statement
of claim should be amended. The defendant petitions the correctness of the doubt.

Mohamed v Kunji Mohidin

The plaintiff has a valid license to pick coconuts from trees and therefore owns and has the right to
Sue for infringement.

Analysis

Case Julaika Bivi v Mydin Mohamed v Kunji Mohidin

Similarity This case related to Tol. This case related to Tol.

Dissimilarity 1) The defendant of this 1) The defendant of this

case just trespass case was trespass of
2) This case has not been damage the plaintiff
 to the session court and
the amount of
compensation has not
been given.
3) This case involves two
TOL holders.
property. For example,
coconut palms.
2) This case has been to
the session court and
the result has been
obtained. The amount
of compensation was
2,000 dollars.
3) This case involves one
holder only.

In my personal opinion, these two cases are good examples for us to refer to because the cause of this
case is that we are generally likely to encounter problems and the result of the court is fair. Therefore,
we can refer to and learn from these two cases in the future.