Section 323 National Land Code 1965
Whether monetary claim is caveatable interest?
The 3 hurdles principle
#GOH PAIK SWAN v NG CHOO LUM [1996] 3 MLJ 437
(i) whether the respondent, on the material set out by him in his application under s 323(1) of the Code, has disclosed a caveatable interest;
(ii) if he has established a caveatable interest, then, whether the evidence he produced in support of his claim to that caveatable interest discloses a serious question to be tried; and
(iii) if the first two questions are resolved in the respondent's favour, then, whether the balance of convenience, or more appropriately, the balance of justice, lies in favour of the caveat remaining on the register pending the disposal of his suit
#DUSUN DESARU SDN BHD & ANOR v WANG AH YU & ORS (NO 2) [2001] 5 CLJ 8
A personal claim known as an in personam claim is enforceable against the registered proprietor and not the land itself and consequently, it is not caveatable.
“A monetary claim against the second plaintiff cannot in law constitute a “registrable interest” under s. 323(1)(a) of the NLC. The phrase “registrable interest” has a special meaning and it should not be diluted nor corrupted by any transaction outside the NLC.”
#INSTITUT TEKNOLOGI FEDERAL SDN BHD v IIUM EDUCATION SDN BHD [2007] 7 MLJ 23
Mere pecuniary interest in land does not entitle a person to lodge a caveat under S 323 of the National Land Code (see para 28)
#REGISTRAR OFTITLES, JOHORE v TEMENGGONG SECURITIES LTD [1976] 2 MLJ 44
Although Malaysian income tax became due and payable by the taxpayer to the Federation upon notice of assessment its legal nature was that of an unsecured civil debt. Until it was converted into a judgment by the recovery of judgment in an action, the unsecured civil debt gave rise to no legal rights in or over any property of the taxpayer nor to any remedies against the taxpayers property. It was a mere personal claim against him and did not come within the meaning of "interest" in section 320(1) of the National Land Code.
Conclusion: Monetary claim is not caveatable interest.
Labels: Legal Notes