不可分割的地段，你的拥有权在哪个角落? [2021] MLJU 2617

原告和被告是一块地的共同持有人。被告是和之前的业主买下一半的地。
被告打算在位于土地的前方位置起房子。原告随后申请禁令，阻止被告起房。
被告表示本身有权这么做，这是因为之前的业主有告诉他，他所购买的土地是属于前方的位置 Plot 1。
原告的理由是，由于是联名土地，实际上属于不可分割的地段/undivided share 。因此被告不可以在该地上起屋，直到土地局批准土地分割的申请为止。
法庭批准了原告的诉讼申请。法庭同意原告的论点，即该地属于不可分割的地段，这表示业主们实际上并无法分辨他们究竟拥有土地的哪一部分。This Court found that the Defendant’s submission is misconceived. As the purchaser of an undivided share of land, the Defendant is not in a position to advance any definitive claim over any part of the Subject Property.
即使被告是被之前的业主误导，但这与原告无关。
法庭判被告不能继续在这块地上起屋子，直到双方协商土地的划分，以及向土地局申请土地分割为止。

*详细的案情和判决，请阅读以下的英文版文章。

Enclosure 1 was filed by the Plaintiff against the Defendant seeking the following orders:

“ 1. Defendan dan atau mana-mana pihak ketiga dan/atau agen yang dilantik oleh Defendan adalah dilarang dari meneruskan kerja-kerja pembinaan apa-apa jenis bangunan di atas hartanah yang dipegang di bawah hakmilik GMM 1184 Negeri Melaka (“GMM 1184”) sehingga keputusan permohonan pecah bahagian di bawah seksyen 142 Kanun Tanah Negara di atas hakmilik GMM 1184 diluluskan atau ditolak oleh Pejabat Tanah dan Daerah Melaka Tengah;

Defendan dan atau mana-mana pihak ketiga dan/atau agen yang dilantik oleh Defendan hendaklah menghentikan segala kerja-kerja dan/atau aktiviti-aktiviti yang melibatkan pembinaan di atas hartanah GMM 1184 dengan serta merta dari tarikh perintah Mahkamah Yang Mulia ini;
Defendan dan atau mana-mana pihak ketiga dan/atau agen yang dilantik oleh Defendan tidak dibenarkan dari memasuki mana-mana bahagian kawasan Hartanah tersebut sehingga keputusan permohonan pecah bahagian diluluskan atau ditolak oleh Pejabat Tanah dan Daerah Melaka Tengah;
Plaintif diberikan kebenaran dan kebebasan untuk melakukan segala usaha-usaha yang munasabah bagi menghalang sebarang pembinaan dijalankan di atas hartanah GMM 1184 sementara menunggu keputusan permohonan pecah bahagian diluluskan atau ditolak oleh Pejabat Tanah dan Daerah Melaka Tengah;
Plaintif diberikan kebenaran dan kebebasan untuk melakukan segala usaha-usaha yang munasabah bagi menghalang Defendan dan/atau mana-mana pihak dari memasuki dan/atau mendiami di dalam kawasan hartanah GMM 1184 sementara menunggu keputusan permohonan pecah bahagian diluluskan atau ditolak oleh Pejabat Tanah dan Daerah Melaka Tengah;
Kos permohonan ini ditanggung oleh Defendan;”

The Plaintiff’s position

The dispute between the Plaintiff and the Defendant centred around a property (“Subject Property”) jointly owned by the Plaintiff and the Defendant in undivided share.
The Plaintiff owned 55/96 share while the Defendant owned 41/96 share in the Subject Property.
The Plaintiff described the Subject Property as “1/5 bahagian tanah rata, 1/5 bahagian tanah berbukit dan 3/5 bahagian tanah paya.”
The Defendant purchased his 41/96 share from the previous owner (“Third Party”) of the 41/96 undivided share.
On or about September 2020, the Plaintiff noticed that a number of unidentified individuals had come onto the Subject Property in particular on the “1/5 tanah rata” with lorries, machineries and constructions items.
When the Plaintiff and his father confronted these individuals, the Plaintiff was informed that one “Latif” – said to be the landowner of the Subject Property – had asked them to clear the “1/5 tanah rata” as the said “Latif” intended to construct a house on the Subject Property.
The Plaintiff informed these individuals that he is a joint owner of the Subject Property and he had not given his permission to anyone to enter onto the Subject Property. The individuals ignored the Plaintiff’s attempts to stop these individuals from undertaking “kerja-kerja menambak” on the Subject Property.
On 18.9.2020, the Plaintiff through his solicitors issued a written notice to the Defendant putting the Defendant on notice that the Defendant was to stop any construction works on the Subject Property. The Defendant ignored the written notice.
In January 2021, the Plaintiff noticed that a number of unidentified individuals had come onto the Subject Property with construction materials and constructed a zink fence on the “1/5 tanah rata”.
On 22.1.2021, the Plaintiff through his solicitors issued a notice requiring the individuals to stop all construction works, to remove all construction materials, to vacate and reinstate the Subject Property which notice was pasted on the fence to the Subject Property. The Defendant ignored the notice.
The Plaintiff lodged a complaint to the local authority as to the actions by the Defendant. The Plaintiff discovered that the Defendant did not have any permission from the local authority for the works on the Subject Property.
The Plaintiff appointed a licensed surveyor and the licensed surveyor applied under Section 141A and Section 142 of the NLC for sub- division of the Subject Property to the Pejabat Tanah dan Daerah Negeri Melaka.
As at the date of commencement of this action, the Pejabat Tanah dan Daerah Negeri Melaka has not approved or rejected the Plaintiff’s application for sub-division.

The Defendant’s position

The Defendant purchased what he termed as “Bahagian Defendan” in the Subject Property, which he also referred to as Plot 1, from the Third Party. The Defendant purchased the “Bahagian Defendan” with the intention of constructing a house thereon.
At the time of his purchase, the Defendant was shown Plot 1 by the son of the Third Party. The Defendant claimed that Plot 1 owned by the Defendant. According to the Defendant, Plot 1 (which the Plaintiff describes as “1/5 tanah rata”) was overgrown with “semak-samun”.
In July 2020, the Defendant appointed a licensed surveyor to carry out a survey on the Subject Property. The licensed surveyor appointed by the Defendant prepared a plan setting out Plot 1 and Plot 2.
Plot 1 was originally covered by “semak samun” while Plot 2 was “kemas tanpa hutan mahupun semak samun” with a brick house located on part of Plot 2.
The Defendant contended that he purchased Plot 1 on a misrepresentation by the Third Party that Plot 1 was “Bahagian Defendan”.
The Defendant did not dispute that he carried out the clearing of Plot 1 and commenced construction on Plot 1.
The Defendant did not agree to the plan by the licensed surveyor appointed by the Plaintiff according to the Defendant, the division by that licensed surveyor is advantageous to the Plaintiff and disadvantageous to the Defendant.

Determination by the High Court

The Defendant purchased an undivided share in the Subject Property. This is common ground between the parties.
The Defendant submitted that the present dispute between the Plaintiff and the Defendant is caused by a misrepresentation by the Third Party.
This Court found that the Defendant’s submission is misconceived. As the purchaser of an undivided share of land, the Defendant is not in a position to advance any definitive claim over any part of the Subject Property.
Based on the Defendant’s own averment on oath, the alleged representation was not made by the Third Party but a son of the Third Party. There is no material before this Court that the son of the Third Party was acting on the authority of the Third Party or on behalf of the Third Party when representing to the Defendant that the portion purchased by the Defendant was Plot 1. This Court finds that even if such representation was made with the authority or on behalf of the Third Party, this is an issue between the Defendant and the Third Party. This Court finds that the issue of representation or misrepresentation by the Third Party does not have any impact on the dispute between the Plaintiff and the Defendant in the present action.
This Court also finds that the fact that there is a house located on Plot 2 said to be owned/occupied by the Plaintiff and/or the Plaintiff’s family does not assist the Defendant in advancing a claim of ownership over Plot 1.
The Defendant does not dispute that he has come onto the Subject Land, undertaken works to clear part of the Subject Land and commenced construction works on the Subject Land. The Defendant also does not dispute that he came onto the Subject Land and undertook the above works without the agreement of the Plaintiff as a co-owner of the Subject Property.
The Defendant further does not dispute that there is a pending application for sub-division of the Subject Property presently before the Pejabat Tanah dan Daerah Negeri Melaka and that at the date of this action, the Pejabat Tanah dan Daerah Negeri Melaka has not approved or rejected the Plaintiff’s application for sub-division.
Order 28 Rule 4(1) of the Rules of Court 2012 states that:

“Directions by Court (O. 28, r. 4)

4.(1) The Court hearing an originating summons may, if the liability of the defendant to the plaintiff in respect of any claim made by the plaintiff is established, make such order in favour of the plaintiff as the nature of the case may require, but where the Court makes an order under this paragraph against a defendant who does not appear at the hearing, the Court, if satisfied that it is just to do so, may rehear the originating summons.”

Having reviewed all available material, this Court finds that the Plaintiff has established a claim against the Defendant.
This Court exercises its summary jurisdiction under Order 28 of the Rules of Court 2012 in favour of the Plaintiff.

Decision of the High Court

On 11.11.2021, this Court granted orders in the terms of Enclosure 1 with costs of RM3,000.00.

Source: Mohd Hairi bin Md Jamil v Abd Latif bin Abdul Rahman [2021] MLJU 2617. High Court Malaka. Maidzuara Mohammed JC

==============================

*如果您需要聘请律师处理法律事务，您可以联系我们。

*如果您需要法律咨询(付费)，您可以联系我们。

*我们的律师楼拥有超过18年的执业经验。我们有处理民事纠纷(打官司/法庭诉讼)、商业纠纷、劳工纠纷(工业法庭）、追讨债务、遗产分配、立遗嘱、离婚、抚养权、赡养费、产业分配、领养小孩、拟商业合约、拟雇佣协议、拟买卖合约、银行贷款、法律咨询、法律顾问、等法律事务。全马的案件，我们皆有处理。*We have more than 18 years of experience in the legal profession. We handle matters such as civil litigation, commercial disputes, labour disputes (Industrial Court), debt recovery, probate & letter of administration, will, divorce, children custody, maintenance/alimony, adoption, distribution of matrimonial assets, drafting commercial agreement, drafting employment contract, drafting sale and purchase agreement, process loan documentations, legal consultation, legal advisory, miscellaneous legal works.

*Wilson Kuek律师是“法律与你同行 Law & Justice”面子书群组的创办人。“法律与你同行”是马来西亚最大的法律平台。我们的平台每天为无数的平民百姓免费解除各类的法律困扰。

*加入我们的“法律与你同行”FB 群组: http://bit.ly/fblawnjustice

*Like 我们的“法律与你同行” FB Page: http://bit.ly/lawnjusticefbpage

*加入我们的Telegram:

(i) 各项法律/政府政策: https://t.me/LawAndJusticeGroup

(ii) 雇主必知的法律/政府政策: https://t.me/LawAndJusticeEmployer

*订阅我们的YouTube: http://bit.ly/lawnjustice

*Kuek, Ong & Associates. Advocates & Solicitors. No.86-1, Jalan Mahagoni 1, Bandar Botanic, 41200 Klang, Selangor Darul Ehsan.

#Kuek, Ong & Associates #Kuek Ong & Associates #Kuek Ong Associates #Klang Legal Firm #Klang Lawyer #KL Lawyer #Kuala Lumpur Lawyer #Chinese Lawyer in Malaysia #Malaysia Lawyer #Litigation Lawyer #Divorce Lawyer #reputable lawyer #trustworthy lawyer

#郭汪律师事务所 #郭汪律师楼 #巴生律师楼 #吧生律师楼 #马来西亚华人律师 #懂华文的律师 #懂华语的律师 #KL律师 #吉隆坡律师 #民事诉讼律师 #民事案律师 #专打官司的律师 #专打官司律师 #工业法庭律师 #劳工法庭律师 #专打离婚案的律师 #专打离婚案律师 #处理离婚的律师 #处理离婚案的律师 #离婚律师 #买卖合约律师 #有经验的律师 #好律师 #专业的律师 #信得过的律师 #利害的律师 #有信誉的律师 #有声望的律师 #出名的律师 #有名的律师 #有实力的律师

#undivided share #injunction