______________________________________________________________________________

TAYLOR’S LAW SCHOOL

BACHELOR OF LAWS
Lecture Outline and Tutorial Guide

Module Code LAW62104

Module Title Land Law III
Academic Year April 2024 Semester
Semester Sem 5 / Year 3

1
LECTURE OUTLINE
TOPIC 1 : CREATION AND TRANSFERS OF INTEREST IN
MALAYSIA
1.1 Introduction to the concept of transfer.
 Dealings
 Contract of Sale and Purchase

1.2 Authority to transfer land;

 Section 214 NLC 1965
 Dr Ti Teow Siew & Ors v Pendaftar Geran-Geran Tanah Negeri Selangor [1982] 1 MLJ 38
 Form 14 A & Form 14 B
1.3 Transfer of Land
 Duty of Solicitor
 Investigate
 Neogh Soo Oh & ORs v G Rethinasamy [1984] 1 MLJ 126
 Au Meng Nam & Anor v Ung Yak Chew [2007] 5 MLJ 136
 Am Finance Bhd v Lebik bt Haji Ali & ORs [2008] 6 MLJ 589
 Parties to Sale and Purchase
 Duty of Stakeholder
 Tan Suan Sim v Chang Fook Shen [1980] 2 MLJ 66
 Toh Theam Hock v Kemajuan Perwira Management Corporation Sdn Bhd [1988] 1 MLJ
116
 Selvaratnam a/l Vellupillai v Dr. Jayabalan Karrupiah [2009] 1 MLJ 794
 Yen Chong Realty Sdn Bhd v Jiddi Joned Enterprise Sdn Bhd & Ors [2016] 12 MLJ 141
(CA)
 Lai Kee Peng ( Messrs Lai Kee Peng & Assoc) v Tay Hup Lian [2016] 2 MLJ 21 (FC)
 OCBC Bank (M) Sdn Bhd v Lee Lee Fah & Ors [2000] 1 MLJ 134
 Bare Trust
 Lysaght v Edwards (1876) 2 Ch D 499 & Shaw v Foster (1872) LR 5 HL 321 ( HL)
 Ong Chat Pang v Valliappa Chettiar [1971] 1 MLJ 224
 Temenggong Securities Ltd & Anor v Registrar of Titles, Johore & Ords [1974] 2 MLJ 45
(FC)
 Samuel Naik Siang Ting v Public Bank Bhd [2015] 6 MLJ 1
 Macon Engineers Sdn Bhd v Goh Hooi Yn [1976] 2 MLJ 53
 Borneo Housing Mortgage Finance Bhd v Time Engineering Bhd [1996] 2 MLJ 12
 Tan Ong Ban v Teoh Kim Heng [2016] 2 AMR 813; ; [2016] 3 CLJ 193 FC,
 He-Con Sdn Bhd v Bulyah bt Ishak & Anor (as administrators for the estate of Nor Zainir
bin Rahmat, the deceased) and another appeal [2020] 4 MLJ 662
 Mohd Sobri Chew bin Abdullah v Syarikat Perumahan Negara Bhd & Ors [2022] MLJU
3077

1.4 Restriction to the power to transfer the land and the effect of the transfer.
 Section 206 NLC 1965 Registration of Title before transfer
 Section 214 (2) NLC 1965
2
  Jalaludeen a/l Abdul Aziz v Thrumalingam & Anor [2001] 4 AMR 4818
 Transfer of Undivided Share of Land
 Tan Chiw Thoo v Tee Kim Kuay [1997] 2 MLJ 221
 Peter Lai Khee Chin & Anor v Collector of Stamp Duties [1973] 2 MLJ 33
 Paul Murugasu s/o Ponnusamy (as representative of Nalamah d/o Sanga Pillay
(deceased ) v Cheok Toh Gong & Ors [1996] 1 MLJ 843
 Mohammad Buyong v Pemungut Hasil Tanah Gombak & Ors [1982] 2 MLJ 53

1.5 Transfer of land as result of the law.

 Occurs in death, bankruptcy and order for sale
 Death – Deceased died testate or intestate

1.6 Position of the parties in a transfer of land.

 Rengamah a/p Rengasamay v Tai Yoke Lai [1998] 5 MLJ 260
 Kumpulan Sua Betong Sdn Bhd v Ezan Sdn Bhd [1993] 2 MLJ 289

3
TOPIC 2: LEASES AND TENANCIES IN MALAYSIA
2.1Introduction to different types of leases/tenancies
 Distinction between lease and tenancy
 Parties to a lease

2.2 Difference between lease and a licence

 Right in personam vs Right in Rem
 Personal and Proprietary Rights
 Definition of Licensee - Yeap Cheng Hock v Kajima- Taisei Joint Venture [1973] 1 MLJ 230
 Kalimuthu v S Kandiah [1976] 2 MLJ 217
2.3. Elements of a lease
 Three essential features of a lease

i. Intention of a lease and not a licence

• Nature and Quality of Occupancy - Woo Yew Chee v Yong Yong Hoo [1979] 1
MLJ 131- Intention Test
• Mohamed Mustafa v Kandasami [1979] 2 MLJ 109
• The outcome of Street v Mountford [1985] AC 809 on Malaysian cases
Innab Salil & ORs v Verve Suites Mont Kiara Management Corporation [2020] MLJU
1563
ii. Payment of Rental
a. Equity Corporation’s Case [2002] 6 MLJ 74
b. Kandasami v Mustafa [1983] 2 MLJ 85
iii. Definite Term
Siew Soon Wah v Yong Tong Hong 1 MLJ 93133
2.3 Right and Liabilities under Express and Implied Provision of a Lease
 Section 229- 233 NLC 1965
 Goh Eng Wah v Yap Phooi Yin [1985] 1 MLJ 329
 Khoo Ee Liang v Henry Waugh Ltd [1934] 1 MLJ 40
 Lurcott v Wakely [1911] 1 KB 905
 Voo Min En v Leong Chung Fatt [1982] 2 MLJ 242 (FC)
 Zainal Abidin v Century Hotel Sdn Bhd [1987] 1 MLJ 236 (SC)
 King’s Motors (Oxford) LRd v Lax [1969] 3 AER 665
 Luggage Distributors (M) Sdn Bhd v Tan Hor Teng & Anor [1995] 1 MLJ 710 (CA).
 Wisma Sime Darby Sdn Bhd v Wilson Parking (M) Sdn Bhd [1996

2.4 Determination of lease

 Section 235,239 -240,346 NLC 1965
 Trustees of Leong San Thong (Khoo Kongsi ) v Poh Swee Sinag [1987] 2 MLJ 511
 HP Projects Sdn Bhd v Investprop [M] Sdn Bhd [2005] 6 MLJ 409
 Lam Yee King Sdn Bhd v Lan Shes Tong & Anor [1974] 2 MLJ 83

2.5 Creation and powers of a lease/tenancy

 Power of Leasing – S221 -226 NLC 1965
4
  United Malayan Banking Corp Bhd v Syarikat Perumahan Luas Sdn Bhd (No.2) [1988] 3 MLJ
352
 Effect of uncertain term – Karuppan Chetty v Suah Thiam [1916] 1 FMSLR 300 ;
Siew Soon Wah & Ors v Yong Tong Hong [1973]1 MLJ 133
 Effect of lease subject to a charge – Marugappa Chetty v Low [1932] 4 FMSLR 87,
Holee Holdings (M) Sdn Bhd v Chai Him & Ors [1997] 4 MLJ 601

2.6 Registration of a lease

 Registration of a Lease
 Unregistered Lease
 Margaret Chua v Ho Swee Kiew & Ors [1961] 1 MLJ 83 cf Ho Ying Chye v Teh Cheng Huat
[1965] 2 MLJ 261
 Siew Soon Wah & Ors v Yong Tong Hong [1973] 1 MLJ 133
 Wan Salimah bte Wan Jaafar v Mahmood Bin Omar (Amin bte Abdul Aziz, Intervener) )
[1998] 5 MLJ 162
 S& M Jewellery Trading Sdn Bhd v Fui Lian – Kwong Hing Sdn Bhd [2015] MLJU 518. (FC )
 Lee Ah Low v Cheong Lep Keen & Anor [1970] 1 MLJ 7
 Cheng Hang Guan & Ors v Perumahan Farlim (Penang) Sdn Bhd [1993]3 MLJ 352
 Ho Ying Chye v The Cheong Huat [1965] 2 MLJ 261
 Ong Heng Hwa Realty Sdn Bhd v Teo Chai Siok [1977] 1 MLJ 124
 Uncertain Terms - Lin Nyuk Chan v Wong Sz Tsin [1964] MLJ 200 (FC)
 Endorsement of Tenancy
 Than Kok Leong v Low Kim Hai [1983] 1 MLJ 187 cf Susila Devi v Pang Kwee Kow Muar Civil
Suit No. 98 of 1980
 Luggage Distributors (M) Sdn Bhd v Tan Hor Teng & Anor [1995] 1 MLJ 719

2.7 Equitable lease/tenancy

 Inward v Baker [1965] AER 446
 Tenancy coupled with equity
 MPRL Karuppan Chetty v Suah Thian [1916] 1 FMSLR 300
 Devi v Francis [1969] 2 MLJ 169
 Ooi Ai Seng v Chan Lin Lam [1973] 2 MLJ 20
 Mok Deng Chee v Yap See Hoi & Ors [1981] 2 MLJ 321
 Siew Soon Wah v Yong Tong Hong [1973] 1 MLJ 133
 Tan Khien Toong v Hoong Bee & Co [1987] 1 MLJ 387 (SC
 Cheo Lean How v Fock Fong Looi [1985] 2 MLJ 440
 Sen Loon Heng v Zabon @ Zaitun bt Sulaiman [1996] 1 CLJ 775
 Laksamana Realty Sdn Bhd v Yeo Tin Sang [190] 4 MLJ 48
 SS Saw v Siew Heen Yuen & Ors (Siew Boon Hong @ Shandran & Ors , interveners) [2009] 2
MLJ 214
 Singma Sawmill Co Sdn Bhd v Asian Holdings Sdn Bhd [1980] 1 MLJ 2

TOPIC 3 : COVENANTS AND EASEMENT IN MALAYSIA

5
3.1 Concept, creation and termination of easement in Malaysia
 Right in Rem
 Easement compared to other interest
o Natural Rights - Wong See Lee & Ors v Ting Sik Ling [1997] 2 CLJ 205
o Land Administrator’s Right of Way – Mamat bin Yan v Penolong Pentadbir Tanah Kota
Bharu [2004] 3 AMR 730
o Licences;
o Restrictive Covenants – Tam Kam Cheong v Stephen Leong Kon San [1980] 1 MLJ 36 ;
o Profits a prendre

 Section 282 – 291 NLC 1965

 Section 205 NLC 1965
 Re Ellenborough Park [1956] Ch 131
 Features of an Easement
a. Dominant and Servient Land
b. Easement must accommodate the dominant land
c. Dominant and the servient land owners must be a different person
d. The right granted must be capable of forming a subject matter of grant.
 Tam Kam Cheong v Stephen Leong Kon Sang [1980] 1 MLJ 36
 Lee Chuan Tum v Commissioner of Land & Mines , Johor Bahru [1973] 2 MLJ 188
 Hill v Tupper [1863] 2 H & C 121
 Roe v Siddons [1888] 22 PBD 224
 Todrick v Western National Omnibus [1934] Ch 561
 Creation of Easement
 Datin Siti Hajar v Murugasu [1970] 2 MLJ 153
 E W Talalla v Ng Yee Fong & Anor [1985] 1 MLJ 261
 Tan Wee Choon v Ong Peck Seng & Anor [1986] 1 MLJ 322
 Termination of Lease – s289-291 NLC 1985
 Teo Sui Chin v Lim Siok Luan [2020] 1 MLJ 670 (CA)
 Teo Sui Chin & Ors v Registrar of Land and Survey Kuching Division & Ors [2023] MLJU 2162 ( CA)

3.2 Equitable Easement

 Section 206(3) NLC 1965
 Yong Joo Lin v Fong Poi Fong [1941] MLJ Rep 54
 Lew Peck Lian v Conservator of Forest [1961] MLJ 117
 Datin Siti Hajar v Murugasu [1970] 2 MLJ 103
 Tan Wee Choon v Ong Peck Seng & Anor [1986] 1 MLJ 322
 Alfred Templeton & Ors v Low Yat Holdings [1993] 1 MLJ 443
 Qiristar Bricks Contractor Sdn Bhd & Anor v Loo Ngan Keong & Anor [2013] MLJU 244
 Cottage Home Sdn Bhd v Wong Kau @ Wong Kon Lin & Anor [2014] 3 MLJ 580 CA
 Karak Land Sdn Bhd v Chia Soo Nee [2021] MLJU 1430
 Wan Norhalina bt Wan Mohd Najib v Pesat Bumi Sdn Bhd [2023] MLJU 151

6
TOPIC 4 : SHARING OF OWNERSHIP IN MALAYSIA
4.1 Definition under s342(1) NLC 1965

4.2 Criteria for co-ownership

4.3 Legal and beneficial ownership

4.4 No right of survivorship

 Section 343 (1)(c) NLC 1965

4.5 Custody of issue document in title

 Section 343 (1) (c) NLC 1965

4.6 Right to possession and enjoyment

 Section 343 (1) (b) NLC 1965
 Murugappa Chettiar v Chinniah [1962] 28 MLJ 95
 G.P De Silva & Ors v Chua Yam Thong [1962] 28 MLJ 236

4.7 Right to partition

 Section 343 (1) (b) NLC 1965
 Aishah binti Mohd Saman & 3 Ors v Kalsom bt Haji Mohammad Nor [2000] 1 AMR 607
 Azlina bt Anuar (sebagai wakil diri kepada Anuar bin Mat Hasan dan satu lagi lawan
Baharudin bin Hamat dan lain-lain [2023] MLJU 174

4.8 Right to Termination

 S145(1) NLC 1965
 Ku Yan Bte Ku Abdullah v Ku Idris Bin Ku Ahmad & Ors [1991] 3 MLJ 439.
 Subramaniam & Ors v Inderjit Kaur d/o Karnail Singh [1997] 3 MLJ 366
 Datin Sohaila Adom v Einstein Tay [2016] 1 LNS 522
 Naik Diew Kong v Ling Sing Hang [2016] 6 CLJ 896
 Koh Heng Jin Holdings Sdn Bhd v Phuah Beng Chooi & Anor [2016] 3 CLJ 837 CA
 Low Hong Eng ( as trustee for deceased, Yong Wai Khuen v Lee Soo Jo0 [2021]
MLJU 410
 Zuriati binti Osman (pelikuidasi Syarikat Kerjasama Ladang Raya Berhad ) v
Butterworth Lim Constructions Sdn Bhd [2020] 5 AMR 846
 Moo Hon Yee v S Abdul Rahman Pak Shaik Abdul Kader [2018] 1 LNS 2097
 Phang For Fatt v Phang Meow Fook & Anor [2019] MLJU 1199
 Ong Chin Hai & Anor v Ong Hoo See & 5 Ors [2022] 7 CLJ 852
 Low Hong Eng ( as trustee for deceased, Yong Wai Khuen v Lee Soo Jo0 [2021]
MLJU 410

4.9 Right to Sale

 Koh Boh Huat v Tan Niam Neo [2007] 1 MLJ 328
 Setiawan v Haji Kamaruddin Haji [2011] 1 LNS 41

7
TOPIC 5 : SECURITY TRANSACTIONS AND MORTGAGES IN
MALAYSIA
5.1 Concept of a charge.
 S243 and s281 (1) NLC 1965
8
  Malayan United Finance Bhd v Tan Lay Soon [1991] 1 MLJ 504
5.2 Creation of a charge.
 Part XXIV NLC 1965
 Section 241 NLC 1965
 Aluminium Company of Malaysia Berhad v Ng Than Chai & Anor [1994] 3 MLJ 544
 J Raju v Kwong Yik Bank Berhad [1994] 2 MLJ 408
 Creation over the whole of an alienated land.
 R& I Securities Sdn Bhd v Golden Castle Finance Corp(M) Ltd [1979] 1 MLJ 46.
 Yee Sin Cheon v UMBC [1992] 2 CLJ 1298
 Mahadevan s/o Mahalingam v Manilal & Sons (M) Sdn Bhd [1984] 1 MLJ 266
 Interest in land.
 Ho Giok Chay v Nik Aishah[1961] MLJ 49
 T Bariam Singh v Pengawai Pentadbir Pesaka , Malaysia [1983] 1 MLJ 232
 Contractual nature of a charge
 Co-Operative Central Bank Ltd v Y & W Development Sdn Bhd [1997] 3 MLJ 373 ,
 Ginlon (M) Sdn Bhd v MBF Finance Berhad [2004] 2 MLJ 641
 Phuman Singh v Khoo Kwang Chong [1965] 2 MLJ 189
 Associated Finance Corporation Ltd v Poomani [1972] 1 MLJ 117
 Menaka v Lum Kum Chum [1977] 1 MLJ 91
 Wrong Form
 V Letchumanan v Central Malaysian Finance Bhd [1980] 2 MLJ 96
 Tan Yen Yee & Anor v Equity Fiannce Corp Bhd [1991] 1 MLJ 237
 Malaysia Building Society Sdn Bhd v KCSB Konsortium Sdn Bhd [2017] MLJU 208
 Creation of Equitable Mortgage
 Haji Abdul Rahman & Anor v Mahomed Hassan [1917] AC 209
 Chuah Eng Khong v Malayan Banking Bhd [1998] 3 MLJ 97
 Mahadevan s/o Mahalingam v Manilal & Sons (M) Sdn Bhd [1984] 1 MLJ 266
 Southern Bank Bhd v Chuah Beng Hock [1999] 5 MLJ 206
 Assignment
 Chuah Eng Khong v Malayan Banking Bhd [1998] 3 MLJ 97
 Phileoallied Bank (M) Sdn Bhd v Bupinder Singh a/l Avatar Singh & Anor [2002] 2 MLJ 513
5.3 Difference between Malaysian charge and English mortgage.
 Torren Charge is a creation of statute vs Common Law Deed of Mortgage
 Gan Khor v Soan Bin Pelitat [1935] MLJ 158
 Paramoo v Zeno [1968] 2 MLJ 230
 BBMB Bhd v Doric Development Sdn Bhd & Ors [1988] 1 MLJ 462
 Malayan United Finance Bhd v Tan Lay Soon [1991] 1 MLJ 540
5.4 Rights and remedies of chargor and chargee.
 Kimlin Housing Development Sdn Bhd v Bank Bumiputra (M) Sdn Bhd [1997] 2 MLJ 805
 Notice of Demand /Notice of Default
 Letter of Demand - Multi-purpose Bank Bhd v Maimoon bte Abdul Razak [1999] 6 MLJ 215,
OCBC Bank v Motif Era Sdn Bhd [2017] MLJU 144
 Jacob v Oversea- Chinese Banking Corp , Ipoh[1974] 2 MLJ 161 , Bank Bumiputra Malaysia
Sdn Bhd v Mahmud bin Haji Mohomed Din (Datin Hajjah Salma bte Md Jamin, Intervener)
[1989] 1 MLJ 381 compare to Central Malaysian Finance v Loke Kok Lai [1975] 1 MLJ 160
 Syarikat Kewangan Melayu Raya v Malayan Banking Bhd [1986] 2 MLJ 253

9
 Jacob v Oversea-Chinese Banking Copr [1974] 2 MLJ 161
 Bank Bumiputra Malaysia Bhd v Mahmud bin Haji Mohamed Din (Datin Hajjah Salma bte md
Jamin,Intervener)[1989] 1 MLJ 381
 OCBC Bank (Malaysia) Bhd v H’ng Ban Choon & Anor [2023] MLJU 1482
 Co- operative Central Bank Ltd v Meng Kuang Properties Bhd [1991] 2 MLJ 283
 Public Bank Bhd v Chan Siok Lie [1989] 2 MLJ 305
 V.A.M Hussain v B.P.Malaysia [1970] 2 MLJ 69
 Rights of Chargee
 Order for Sale
 Notice on the Chargor
 Kandiah Peter v Public Bank Bhd [1994] 1 MLJ 119
 Development & Commercial Bank Bhd, Johore Bahru v Kim Ming Choon [1991] 2 MLJ 246
 CIMB Bank Bhd v Sivadevi a/p Sivalingam [2020] 1 MLJ 583
 Thameez Nisha Hasseem v Maybank Allied Bank Berhad [2023] 5 CLJ 87
 RHB Bank Bhd v Syarikat Sungei Nal Timber Indutries Sdn Bhd Bhd [2007] 4 MLJ 567
 Citibank Bhd v Mohamad Khalid bin Farzalur Rahaman & Ors [2000] 4 MLJ 96
 Keng Soon Finance Bhd v MK Retnam Holdings Sdn Bhd [1989] 1 MLJ 457
 Moscow Narodny Bank Ltd v New Kok Ann Realty Sdn Bhd [1989] 3 MLJ 310
 Order 83
 Citibank NA v Ibrahim bin Othman [1994] 1 MLJ 608
 Perwira Habib Bank Sdn Bhd v Lum Choon Realty Sdn Bhd [2006] 5 MLJ 21
 Court Order for Sale
 Low Lee Lian v Ban Hin Lee Bank Bhd [1997] 1 MLJ 77
 Oriental Bank Bhd v Sykt Zahidi Sdn Bhd [1999] 1 CLJ 810
 CIMB Investment Bank Berhad (formerly known as Commerce International Merchant
Bankers Berhad) v Metroplex Holdings Sdn Bhd [2014] 6 MLJ 779 (FC)
 Standard Chartered Bank v Packirir Maideen [1963] MLJ 276
 V Letchumanan v Central Malaysian Finance Bhd [1980] 2 MLJ 96
 Nira Sdn Bhd v Malayan Banking Bhd [1990] 1 MLJ 110
 Public Bank Bhd v Chan Tak Kow [1988] 3 MLJ 330
 Eu Finance Bhd v Sim Sen Organization Bhd [1990] 2 MLJ 357
 Malaysian International Merchant Bankers Bhd v Dhanoa Sdn Bhd [1988] 1 MLJ 257(SC)
 Maimunah bte Megat Montak v Mayban Finance Bhd [1996] 2 MLJ 422
 Muniandy a/l Thamba Kaundan v D& C Bank Bhd & Anor [1996] 1 MLJ 374
 The Chartered Bank v Packiri Maideen & Anor [1963] MLJ 276.
 Siland Sdn Bhd v M& J Frozen Food Sdn Bhd [1990] 2 MLJ 502
 Kimlin Housing Development Sdn Bhd (Appointed received and manager) ( In Liquidation) v
Bank Bumiputra (M) Sdn Bhd [1997] 2 MLJ 805
 UMBC v Chong Bun Sun [1994] 2 MLJ 221
 Hong Leong Finance Bhd v Staghorn Sdn Bhd [1995] 2 MLJ 847
 Order For Sale by Land Administrator
 Section 261 NLC 1965
 Ragavaniadoo v Supramaniam Chetty [1914] 1 FMSLR 139
 Suppiah V Ponnapalam [1963] MLJ 202
 Gurpal Singh v Kananayer [1976] 2 MLJ 34
 Government of Malaysia v Omar bin Haji Ahmad [1983] 1 CLJ 242

10
  Lim Yoke Foo v Eu Finance Bhd [1985] 1 MLJ 17
 MUI Bank Bhd v Cheam Kim Yu [1985] 1 MLJ 17
 Kuala Lumpur Finance v Yap Poh Khian (Teo Sik Eng & Anor, Interverneds)[1992] 1 MLJ 472
 M & J Frozen Food Sdn Bhd & Anor v Siland Sdn Bhd [1994] 1 MLJ 294
 Collector of Land Revenue , Kota Bahru v Yusoff bin Yunus [1977] 2 MLJ 53
 Scotch Leasing Sdn Bhd (In revership ) v Chee Pok Choy & Ors [1997] 2 MLJ 105
 Bangkok Bank Bhd v Chuan Kee Co Sdn Bhd [2000] 2 MLJ 113 cf Golden Wheel Credit Sdn
Bhd v Lim Chiew Pheng [1988] 2 MLJ 336 )
 Status of Order for Sale
 Sale Effect
 Registration of Certificate of Sale in Form 16 F and Indefeasibility of Title
 Siland Sdn Bhd & Anor v M & J Frozen Food Sdn Bhd & Anor [1990] 2 MLJ 502
 Gondola Motor Credit Sdn Bhd v Almurisi Holding Sdn Bhd [1990] 3 MLJ 180
 Perdana Properties Sdn Bhd v Yong Chon [1990]1 MLJ 433
 Exception of Cause to Contrary
 Low Lee Lian v Ban Hin Lee Bank Bhd [1997] 1 MLJ 77
 RHB Bank Bhd v Syarikat Sunge Nal Timber Industries Sdn Bhd [2007] 4 MLJ 567
 Cempaka Finance Berhad v Ho Lai Ying & Anor [2006] 2 MLJ 685
 Multi-Purpose Bank Berhad v Maimoon Binti Abdul Razak [1999] 6 MLJ 215
 Tai Lee Finance Co Sdn Bhd v Officiial Assigneed & Ors [1983] 1 MLJ 81
 Overseas Chinese Banking Corporation Ltd V Lee Tan Hwo & Anor [1989] 1 MLJ 261
 Keng Soon Finance Bhd v MK Retnam Holdings Sdn Bhd [1989] 1 MLJ 457
 Malayan United Finance v Tan Ah Moi [1993] 2 CLJ 427
 Public Finance Bhd v Hock Seng Housing Development Sdn Bhd ( See Ha Chai & Ors,
Interveners) [1992] 1 MLJ 442
 Taking Possession of Charged Land
 Malaysian Credit Finance Bhd v Yap Hock Choon & Anor [1989] 2 MLJ 363
 Rights of Chargor
 M& J Frozen Food Sdn Bhd & Anor v Siland Sdn Bhd [1994] 1 MLJ 294
 Malayan United Finance Bhd v Tan Lay Soon [1991] 1 MLJ 504
 Discharge of Charge
 Possession
 Malaysian Credit Finance Bhd v Yap Hock Choon [1989] 2 MLJ 363
 Woon Foon Hoh v Muthiah Chetty [1934] MLJ 121
5.5 Creation of liens.
 Palaniappa Chetty v Dupire Brothers [1919] FMSLR 374
 Ngan Khong v Bamah Binti Pakeh Jamin [1935] FMSLR 81
 Hong Leong Bank Bhd (formerly known as Hong Leong Finance Bhd ) v Staghorn Sdn Bhd and
other appeals [2008] 2 MLJ 622
 Zeno Ltd v Prefabricated Construction Co. (Malaya) Ltd v Anor [1967] 2 MLJ 105
 Habib Bank (M) Bhd v Loo & Sons Realty Sdn Bhd (No. 1)[1996] 3 MLJ 409
 Elements of a Lien
 Deposit of Issue Document of Title or Duplicate Lease
 Hong Kong & Shanghai Banking Corp . V Hj Salam Bin Hj Daud ( Mohd Azni Bin Sudin)
Auction Purchaser ; RHB Bank Bhd , Intervenor ) [2002] 3 MLJ 483
 Hong Leong Bank v Staghorn Sdn Bhd [2008] 2 MLJ 622

11
  Intention to Create Lien
 Perwira Habib Bank Malaysia Bhd v Tin Siang Sdn Bhd & Ors [1992] 4 CLJ 1875
 Peter P’Chient v Ramasamy Chetty [1923] FMSLR 220
 ORMORM Manickavasagam Chetyy v TJ McGregor [1933] MLJ 295
 Paramoo v Zeno Ltd [1968] 2 MLJ 230
 Nallmmal & Anor v Karuppanan & Anor [1993] 3 MLJ 476
 Manikavasagam Chetty v TJ McGregor [1933] MLJ 295
 Standard Chartered Bank v Yap Sing Yoke & Ors [1989] 2 MLJ 49
 Lodging or Entry of Lien- Holders Caveat
 Vallipuram Sivaguru v Palaniappa Chetty , Official Administrator as Administrator of the
Estate of Gan Inn , deceased [1937] MLJ 59
 Mercantile Bank Ltd v The Official Assignee of the Property of How Han The [1969] 2 MLJ
196
 United Overseas Bank ( Malaysia) Sdn Bhd v UJA Sdn Bhd & Anor Appeal [2010] 6 CLJ 2014
( CA)
 Enforcement of Lien
 Perwira Affin Bank Bhd v Selangor Properties [2010] 3 MLJ 43
 Cheong Kam v Loke Chow Tye [1924] 4 FMSLR 294

TOPIC 6 : RESTRAINT OF DEALINGS

6.1 Registrar’s Caveat

 Palaniappa Chettiar v Letchumanan Chettiar & Anor [1982] 1 MLJ 232
 EU Finance v Siland Sdn Bhd [1989] 1 MLJ 195
 Seet Soh Ngoh v Venkateswara Bhd [1976] 242
12
  Lim Ah Hun v Pendaftar Hakmilik Tanah Pulau Pinang [1990] 3 MLJ 34
 EU Finance Berhad v Siland Sdn Bhd Frozen S.B [1994] 1MLJ 119
 Pow Hing & Anor v Registrar of Titles , Malacca [1981] 1 MLJ 155
 MUI Finance Bhd v Pendaftar Hakmilik, Shah Alam & Anor [1993] 1 MLJ 98
 Overseas Chinese Banking Corporation Ltd v PHT Negeri Kedah [1990] 2 MLJ 478
 Development & Commercial Bank v Land Administrator WP [1991] 2 MLJ 180
 Lim Kim Joo v Pentadbir Tanah Seberang Perai Selatan & Ords [2021] MLJU 2098
 Tan Soo Bing & Ors v Tan Kooi Fook [1996] 3 MLJ 547( FC)
 Taipan Focus Sdn Bhd v Tunku Mudzaffar bin Tunku Mustapha [2011] 1 MLJ 441 (FC)
 Temenggong Securities Ltd & anor v Registrar of Titles , Johore & Ors [1974] 2 MLJ 45 ( FC)
 Development & Commercial Bank Bhd v Land Administrator , Wilayah Persekutuaan & Anor
[ 1991] 2 MLJ 180 (SC)
 Pendaftar Hakmilik Negeri Kedah v Oversea-Chinese Banking Corp Ltd [1991] 2 MLJ 177 ( SC)
 Public Bank Bhd v Pengarah Tanah dan Galian , Johor Bahru & Anor [1990] 3 MLJ 100 (SC)

6.2 Private Caveat

 Eng Mee Yong & Ors v Letchuman [1979] 2 MLJ 212
 Wong Kim Poh v Saamah [1987] 1 MLJ 400 SC
 N Vangedasalam v Mahadevan [1976] 2 MLJ 161
 Macon Engineers Sdn Bhd v Goh Hooi Ying [1976] 2 MLJ 53
 Caveatable Interest
 Kumpulan Sua Bentong v Ezan Sdn Bhd & Anor [1993] 2 MLJ 289
 Standard Chartered Bank v Yap Sing Yoke [1989] 2 MLJ 49
 Macon Engineers Sdn Bhd v Goh Hooi Ying [1976] 2 MLJ 53
 Score Options Sdn Bhd v Mexaland Development Sdn Bhd [2012] 6 MLJ 475 (FC
 Rajinder Kaur v Jeswant Singh [1987] 1 MLJ 214 SC
 Tan Heng Poh v Tan Boon Thong [1992] 2 MLJ 1 SC
 Ong Chat Pang & Anor v Vallinappa Chettiar [1971] 1 MLJ 224 FC
 Goh Hee Sing v Will Raja & Anor [1993]
 Murggappa Chettiar v Lee Teck Moon [1995] 2 CLJ 545
 EU Finance v Siland Sdn Bhd [1989] 1 MLJ 195
 Lee Kim Guan v Malaysian Produce Sdn Bhd [1993] 2 AMR 29
 Sharifah Mastura v Wan Aziz Ibrahim [1994] 3 AMR 38
 Affin Bank v Dato Mohamed Embong [2002] 1 MLJ 475
 Asia Commercial Finance v Development & Realtor [1992] 2 MLJ 504
 Barry v HeIder [1914] HCA 79
 Azlan Maidin & Anor v PT Melaka Tengah & Anor [2007] 2 MLJ 47
 Removal Caveat
 RAP Nathan V Hj Abdul Rahman & Ors [1980] 1 MLJ 248
 Hong Keow Tee & Ords v Alkhared & Khoo Holdings Sdn Bhd [1982] 2 MLJ 42
Hock Hin Bros Sdn Bhd v Low Yat Holdings Sdn Bhd [1984] 1 MLJ 9
 Luggage Distributor (M) Sdn Bhd v Tan Hor Ten & Anor [1995] 1 MLJ 719
13
  Puncak Klasik Sdn Bhd v Abd Aziz B Abd Hamid [1994]
 Wu Shu Chen v Raja Zainal Abidin Raja Hussain [1997] 3 CLJ 854
 Soon Seng Co v Toko Palayakat Jamal (M) Sdn Bhd [1999] MLJ 75
 Kwan Yoon Fatt & Sons Sdn Bhd v Trends Building Sdn Bhd [1993] 3 CLJ 485
 Damadoran v Vasudeva [1974] 1 MLJ 128
 Thevathason v Kwong Joon [1990] 3 MLJ 49
 Mawar Biru Sdn Bhd v Lim Kai Chew [1992] 1 MLJ 336
6.3 Lien- holder’s caveat
 Heap Huat Rubber Co v United Overseas Bank Ltd [1992] 3 CLJ 1589
 Ban Hin Lee Bank Bhd v Applied Magnetics (M) Sdn Bhd ( In liquidation ) [2002] 2 MLJU 452
 Chew Sze Sun v Muthiah Chettiar [1983] 1 MLJ 390

6.6 Prohibitory Order and Injunction

 Karuppiah Chettiar v Subramaniam [1971 2 MLJ 45
 Standard Chartered Bank v Yap Sing Yoke & Ors[1989] 2 MLJ 49
 Ban Hin Lee Credit Sdn Bhd v Utama Computer Centre Sdn Bhd [1991] 2 MLJ 327
 Airmartech Corp Msai Sdn Bhd v Equaltra Malaysia Sdn Bhd [2002] 6 MLJ 657
 Meriam bt Yaacob & Ors v Shell M’sia Trading Sdn Bhd [1984] 2 MLJ 31 FC
 Chua Hee Hung & Ors v QB Supreme Insurance Bhd [1990] SC

TUTORIAL GUIDE

TUTORIAL 1 : CREATION AND TRANSFER OF INTEREST IN

MALAYSIA
Questions

14
1 Abu and Ali are twin brothers who live next to each other in a local village in the middle of
the city centre. They had inherited the land from their father.

Abu recently remarried. As a wedding present , Abu transferred his land to both him and his
new wife, Aishah. Six months ago, Ali received a penalty notice from the Inland Revenue
Board for an infringement of section 214(1)(4) (a)NLC when Ali transferred part of his land
to his wife.

Ali sold his land to a buyer name Arios.They had appointed Ali’s solicitor , Hashim from
Messrs Beef, Rendang & Associates as a stakeholder. Unhappy with Hashim,Ali appointed a
new solicitor, Malik from Messrs, Ayam, Masak, Merah & Associates. Malik has advised him
that Hashim has used part of monies for the sale and purchase to set off his fees. This
included the interest on the monies held in the client’s account.

Advise Abu and Ali.

2 Ishak owns a large piece of land in Kuah, Pahang. Ishak was getting on in age and wanted to
sell his land. The National Palm Oil Company bought the land from Ishak. The sale and
purchase agreement was signed and 50% of the purchase price was paid by The National
Palm Oil Company to Ishak’s solicitor, Messrs A,B & C as the appointed stakeholder on
28.8.2022. Two weeks ago, the Government of Malaysia obtained a judgment against Ishak
for unpaid income tax and registered a prohibitory order against Ishak’s title.

The National Palm Oil Company wants to remove the prohibitory order and proceed with
the sale of the Ishak’s land. Further, The National Palm Oil Company has recently found out
that their solicitor, Messrs X, Y and Z had not conducted a search or enquiry with the Land
Office to verify Ishak’s title over this land nor enter a private caveat upon the parties
entering into the Sale and Purchase Agreement.

Advise The National Palm Oil Company on their respective issues.

3. Lee, a foreign national entered into a Sale and Purchase Agreement for estate land with Lim.
Upon payment of full purchase price, Lee’s solicitor had tried to obtain the approval of the
Selangor state authorities. In the meantime, Lee’s solicitor submitted the Form 14A to the
Land Office for registration.

After a year, Lim has disputed the transfer of the estate land to Lee and seeking your advise
on the matter.

4.

i. Dahlia has a number of properties. Unfortunately, her business has failed, and
she owes her creditors over RM1 million. One of her creditors, Market Business
One has filed a petition to declare her a bankrupt for failure to pay her debts to
Market Business One. The Bankruptcy Order was obtained two weeks ago. The
15
 Official Assignee intends to sell her properties to pay of her debts to her
creditors. Advise the Official Assignee.

ii. Ratner bought her house with a loan from Overmoon Bank in 2004. She
obtained loan for 90% of the value of her property of RM500,000.00. She lost
her job last year and has been unable to make payment of her loan. Overmoon
Bank wants to sell her house to pay off her debts to the Bank. Advise Overmoon
Bank.

iii. Carnation is a 90-year-old millionaire with 10 house. She lives with her oldest
son, Oak. All her houses are occupied either by her children or grandchildren.
She passed away in June of 2014 without leaving any will. Advise her children
and grandchildren with regards to her property.

4 Since the dissenting judgment by Lord Denning in Burt v Claude Cousins & Co Ltd and
another [1971] 2 QB 426 , the concept and responsibilities of a stakeholder has developed
over the years.

Discuss the pertinent development of this concept.

5 The recognition equitable principle of doctrine of bare trust is at odds with the landscape of
the Torrens system practised in Malaysia. Discuss.

TUTORIAL 2 : LEASES AND TENANCIES IN MALAYSIA

Questions

1. Rahul both three plots of land (Lot Rose, Orchid and Sunflower) in 1965. In 1975, Rahul
16
 entered into a lease agreement with Akshay for Lot Sunflower. The lease was for 50 years for
rent of RM10,000.00 per month. Rahul’s solicitor registered the lease with the land office.

In 1980, Rahul built a house with an annexed unit on Lot Orchid. He moved in with his wife,
Anjali. As both Anjali and he wanted additional income, they both agreed to rent out the
annexed unit to Anjali’s uncle, Vijay. There was a verbal agreement between Vijay and Rahul,
that he would pay a monthly rent of RM1,000.00 per month indefinitely. Recently, he
requested Vijay to vacate the annexed unit. However, Vijay has refused stating that he has
right to continue leasing the annexed unit.

About two weeks ago, Rahul received a letter from Akshay’s solicitor , stating the following ;
a. That he is enforcing the “option to renew” in the lease agreement and is
extending the lease for a further 10 years ;
b. That Rahul owes him RM10,000.00 for all rates and taxes paid in the last 5 years ;
c. That Rahul owes him RM50,000.00 for all repairs undertaken on the property;
d. That the rental for the property is to be reduced to RM5,000.00 as rental of the
property should be fixed in reference to the square feet of the building only.

Rahul has come to see you with the above issues that have arisen with his properties. Advise
him.

2. Malcom owned several properties ( Property A, B, C and D ) across Kuala Lumpur which he
had bought as investment properties. Jack, a digital nomad had decided to stay in Kuala
Lumpur for a few months at the beginning of 2020. Malcom entered into License Agreement
with Jake to rent the Property A for RM1,500.00 a month. Jake was meant to stay in Property
A for only 3 months. However, due the pandemic, he could not leave Malaysia. He continued
to stay in the apartment but after six months as his work dried up, he stop paying the rent. He
is now refusing to vacate the property, insisting that he has a valid lease in the property.

Malcom had a 10-year lease agreement for Property B with Judy for rent of RM1,000.000
Property B was an old house. After three years of living on the property, Judy, complained to
Malcom that the roof was leaking. However, despite numerous reminders, Malcom had failed
to fix the roof for over 7 months. Judy has stopped paying the rent.

Malcom rented Property C to Joseph. The tenancy agreement stated that the Property was to
be rented for 2 years for a rent of RM1,200.00. In view of the pandemic, Malcom had decided
to sell the property. He sold the property to Michelle. Joseph informed Michelle that he would
like to enforce the option to renew and rent the property for another 2 years. Michelle has
issued a notice to quit to Joseph.
Malcom inherited Property D from his mother. His aunt, Amari built a house at the corner of
Property D, nearly 30 years ago. The house was built out of brick and mortar. Amari paid
Malcom’s mom a rent of RM500.00 a month. After he inherited Property D, Malcom continues
to receive rent from Amari. Malcom has served a bare notice to quit Amari to vacate the
house. Amari is disputing the notice to quit.

Advise Michelle and Malcom.

17
 3. Has the House of Lord’s decision in Street v Mountford has had a minimal impact on the
recognition of leases in the Malaysian context.
Discuss.

4. Identify the key legal issues in a landlord and tenant relationship and examine the adequacy of
the existing legal framework.

TUTORIAL 3 : EASEMENTS and SHARING OWNERSHIP IN

MALAYSIA

Questions
1. Upon receiving a large inheritance, Lee decided to invest in several pieces of land. He bought
two other pieces of land (“Land Crocodile and Land Giraffe”). The sale of land Crocodile was
subject to a right way to owners of neighbouring holdings to and from their land on existing
road to the public highway. The right of way has been in existence for over 20 years. Lee

18
 recently started construction work on Land Giraffe and found a bunker between Land Giraffe
and that of his neighbour’s Sam. Lee recently was advised that by his solicitors, Messrs Char,
Keow,Teow and Partners of the following :

1. That his neighbour Sam does not want to remove the bunker;
2. That the right of way on Land Crocodile has yet to be registered as an easement
and the neighbouring land owners are refusing access;

Advice Lee.

2. Chong has large piece of land in Bangang Lala, Selangor. His land is mineral rich and is next
to the Karal Highway. The land sits on a hill and he has decided to sell the bottom part of his
land to Ah Ming, Ah Leong and Ah Peck. There was Land Administrator’s Private Right of Way
that existed as there was not access way to the Karal Highway. However, there is now a
different access way from Chong’s land to the Karal highway. He wants to have access to the
highway. He also wants to park his wife’s and his’s car at the bottom of the hill. His only
source of water is from the well at the bottom of his land. He wants to continue to have
access to the water in the well through pipes from the well to his house.

Advise Chong.

3. Read the article “Title or and Interest “ Romesh Roy [1996] 1 MLJ xxxvii . Do you agree with
the author’s view that Lord Diplock was misdirected in Temenggong ? Discuss.

4. Critically analyse the decision of Templeton & Ors v Low Yat Holdings [1993] 1 MLJ 443 and
the impact on the law of easements in Malaysia.

5. In the 1950s, Sulaiman had bought a piece of land in the Golden Triangle in Kuala Lumpur.
After all his daughters came of age in the 1980s, he had transferred the land to them. The
land was registered in the name of his daughters, Putih, Kuning, Ungu and Jambu.

Each of his daughter got married a year after each other. Sulaiman as a wedding present, built
a house for each of them on the land .Each daughter’s house was built on the four corners of
the land. In 1999, Ungu passed away. Her husband and family continued to live on the land
despite opposition from Putih and Kuning who want them to leave.

As the years passed by, there was rapid development all around their land. There were
condominiums and office buildings being built all around their home. Developers had
contacted Sulaiman’s daughters to buy the land. Putih and Kuning were eager to sell their
land. However, Jambu wanted to remain in her home, citing the convenience of being in the
centre of the city. Ungu’s husband and family were very unhappy with the decision of the two
sisters to sell the land. In view of the opposition, Putih and Kuning have applied to terminate
the co-proprietorship under s145 NLC without attempting to obtain the consent of Jambu and
Ungu’s family to partition the land. If the land was to be partition, Putih, Kuning, Jambu and
Ungu’s family will only obtain less than 2/5 hectare.

Advise Jambu and Ungu’s husband.

19
 Advise Jambu and Ungu’s husband.

6. Discuss the implication of sharing ownership in Malaysia.

Students are to refer to the articles attached in their discussion

TUTORIAL 4: SECURITY TRANSACTION AND MORTGAGES IN

MALAYSIA

Questions
1 Ramon and his wife wanted to buy their first home in the exclusive enclave of Peshar Park
City. Houses in the development range from RM1 million and above. After much discussion,
Ramon and his wife bought a double storey terrace house priced at RM1.5 million. They
approach Multiple Bank for a loan. After a month, Multiple Bank agreed to give them a loan
for RM1.3 million with a charge on their property. Clause 1 of the charge annexure called for
the repayment to be made within one year of the loan. But clause 2 of the charge annexure
20
 further added that the chargor ‘ will on demand pay all sums which are now or shall from to
time being hereafter be due or owing by the chargor’. Clause 3 of the charge agreement will
have 14 days to pay all sums due.

In the first two years of buying his house, Ramon was able to pay his loan on a timely basis.
However, he lost his job in January and in February, Multiple Bank increased its Base Lending
Rate without notifying him. He could not upkeep his repayment of his loan.

He received a Notice of demand from Multiple Bank informing him that he had 7 days from
the date of the Notice of Default to repay the monies owing of RM1.4 million, principal
amount and outstanding interest. The Notice of Default was dated 11th of March 2023 and
was received by Ramon and his wife on 15th of March 2023. He and his wife were unable to
pay the monies owing.

In May 2023, Ramon and his wife was served by Multiple Bank with an application for Order
for Sale at the High Court of Kuala Lumpur. The application was allowed by the High Court.
Ramon and his wife have appealed against the Order for Sale and argued cause to the contrary
on the following grounds :

a. Multiple Bank had failed to issue a Letter of Demand;

b. Multiple Bank had failed to provide sufficient notice period :
c. Multiple Bank could only claim for the principal amount only and not interest;
d. Multiple Bank had failed to set out the reserve price of the property and provide a
valuation report of the property; and
e. The provisions of the National Land Code do not apply to Islamic Banking Facilities

Advise Multiple Bank.

2. A new development, Sime City Park was taking place in the southwest part of Kuala Lumpur. A
self-contained mini city with schools, hospital, shops, parks were being built. 300 houses were
being built in the development and were due to finish at the end of 2010.

The developer, Sime City Sdn Bhd, worked together with Prime Bank to offer loans to new
buyers of these houses. Alysa wanted to buy her first house in Sime City Park. She bought a 3-
storey townhouse for RM 800,000.00. Jasper Lim and his wife Winnie , bought a 2-storey link
house for RM 900,000.00

Prima Bank’s solicitor, Messrs Selva and Co. prepared the conveyancing documents for both
Alysa and Jasper Lim and his wife Winnie. When the development was completed, Alysa
moved into her new home. Jasper Lim and his Winnie moved into their new home two years
ago.

In the last year, the Base Lending Rate had increased and the economy was shaken, Alsya lost
her job. Jasper Lim found that his business was not doing well. Alsya and Jasper could not
upkeep their repayment. Prima Bank had instructed their lawyers, Messrs Selvi and Co. to
start foreclosure proceedings to recover loan. Messrs Selvi and Co realised that Messrs Selva
and Co had registered a Form 16B instead of Form 16A for Alysa loan. In addition, the

21
 Form16B was registered as 3rd party charge instead of a 1st party charge. Further, the charge
on Jasper Lim’s property had not been registered. Messrs Selva and Co had also failed to enter
a caveat on Jasper’s Lim’s property.

Advice Prime Bank.

3. Lam bought his first home, Green House in 2000. He obtained a loan from Bank Kancil for the
principal sum of RM 250,000.00 at an interest rate of 4%. Bank Kancil, through their solicitor’s Messrs
Chee Chong Fun charged the property.
Lam passed away in 2005. Since than his estate has failed to settle the loan. In 2015, Lam’s daughter
received a Notice of Demand for the monies owing to Bank Kancil. Unable to pay the monies owing,
Bank Kancil subsequently obtained an Order for Sale on the Green House.
Advise Lam’s daughter.

4. Khalid bought defaulted on his repayment on his loan. Bank Musang obtained an Order for Sale
on his property, Dua Lipas. Khalid has instructed his solicitor to set aside the Order for Sale. In the mean
time Khalid has obtained purchaser for Dua Lipas through a private treaty sale.
Advise Khalid.

5. Malaysian charge and English mortgage, two different interest. Discuss.

TUTORIAL 5: RESTRAIN OF DEALINGS

1. Sian Low had inherited Property A from his late father. He wanted to open a restaurant and had
applied for a short- term loan of RM100,000.00 from Durian Bank. Sian Low had deposited the
title for Property A as security for the short-term loan. Durian Bank through their solicitor had
entered a lien-holder’s caveat on Property A.

In the early days of the business, Sian Low restaurant was very successful. Due to the success of
his business, Sian Low bought Property B and applied for loan with Cempadak Bank. Cempadak
Bank registered a charge on Property B. Due to the pandemic, he had to close his restaurant. He

22
 defaulted on the loan repayment with Cempadak Bank. Cempadak Bank obtained an Order for
Sale on Property B.

Sian Low entered into a Sale and Purchase Agreement with Lee- Lee for Property B. Lee Lee’s
solicitor entered a private caveat on Property B. As a result of the Private Caveat entered by Lee-
Lee, Cempadak Bank has been unable to auction off Property B pursuant to the Order for Sale.

Sian Low’s solicitor has filed for an application for the removal of the lien- holder’s caveat on
Property A, alleging that Durian Bank does not have a right to enter the lien- holder caveat.
Further, they have alleged that even if Durian Bank had a right to enter the lien-holder’s caveat,
they had failed to obtain State Authority’s consent to enter the lien holder’s caveat.

Advise Durian Bank and Cempadak Bank.

2. Shazlan , a farmer, bought Property Kuning and Jingga. He obtained a business loan from Ciku
Bank for RM1,000,000.00. For many years, he had a very successful banana plantation.
However, in 2020, due to COVID 19 Pandemic, he suffered huge losses and had to close the
banana plantation.

He was unable to pay the business loan and Ciku Bank obtained a judgment in default against
him for damages of RM1,500,000.00. Ciku Bank through their solicitor obtained a Prohibitory
Order on Property Kuning on the 31st of October 2020 and subsequently sold Property Kuning
on the 2nd of November 2020.

Shazlan, owed the Inland Revenue Board of Malaysia over RM500,000.0 in unpaid taxes. He
recently found out that the Inland Revenue Board of Malaysia entered a Registrar’s Caveat on
Property Jingga. As a result, Shazlan is unable to sell the Property Jingga.

Shazlan seeks your legal advice.

3. To the untrained eye, there are insignificant differences between a Registrar’s Caveat and
Private Caveat. However, these differences are far less insignificant than made out to be.
Analyze.

23