债权人申请拍卖欠债人的土地 [2006] 5 MLJ 342

1. 买家与卖家在在1988年4月5日签署了一份买卖合约。买家付了全款买下业主的两块地，并准备了一份转让备忘录(MOT)，有关转名手续在1994年4 月18日才获得政府的同意。
2. 卖家由于欠下一笔债务，债权人于是在1994年8月13日发出通知信命令卖家还债。债权人也通过法庭申请拍卖卖家的两块地。他申请了冻结上述的产业，让这两块地暂时不能被转让。
3. 买家申请介入债权人的诉讼，以撤销债权人的申请。
4. 法庭批准了买家的申请。法庭表示，当卖家收完买卖合约的卖价和交出产业的使用权给买家时，虽然产业还是卖家的名字，还没有完成转名给买家，卖家就只是买家的受托人，产业的权力已经完全不属于卖家了。当卖家签了产业转移文件和收到全部的买卖卖价，在法律上，他就已经将他在产业全部的实益权益(beneficial interest)都转移给买家了。
5. 当卖家(业主)的受益拥有权(beneficial ownership)已经转移给买家，卖家的债权人是不能打此产业的主意用来还债了。
6. 卖家此时已明确的变成第三方的受托人，他对此产业已经没有任何权益(attachable interest)。在这案件里，原告并没有挑战卖家第与三方的买卖交易是否是真实还是虚假的。小编觉得如果以时间点来观察，买卖合约的日期和原告控告被告的日期很靠近，可能交易有猫腻，但是原告没有在额外向法庭申请宣判该买卖合约和交易是无效。

详细的案情和判决，请阅读以下的英文版文章。

1. There are three parties in this case. They are the plaintiff, the defendant and the intervener. As long ago as 5 April 1988, the defendant entered into an agreement in writing with the intervener to sell to the latter two pieces of land of which he was the registered proprietor. The intervener paid off the purchase price in full and took in his favour a duly executed memorandum of transfer together with an express declaration of trust and a registered power of attorney. The sale was subject to obtaining the consent of the Director of Lands and Surveys, Sarawak. That consent came only on 18 April 1994.
2. On 13 August 1994, the plaintiff caused to be issued a writ against the defendant claiming a debt of RM70,564.95. Judgment in default was entered against the defendant on 13 October 1994. In the meantime, the plaintiff had, on 16 November 1989, entered a caveat against one of the defendant’s two lots basing his right to the caveat on the monies allegedly due from the defendant. That caveat lapsed and was removed by the Director of Lands and Surveys pursuant to Section 178 of the Land Code of Sarawak after the requisite three months notice had been given and the plaintiff had failed to obtain an order from the High Court extending the caveat. Later, the plaintiff obtained a prohibitory order to execute the judgment he had obtained in default of the defendant’s appearance. He then he caused the prohibitory order to be registered against the register document of title to the two pieces of land.
3. Later still, the intervener intervened in the plaintiff’s suit and applied to set aside the prohibitory order. That application was heard and granted by the senior assistant registrar. The plaintiff appealed to the judicial commissioner who dismissed the appeal. The plaintiff then appealed to us. We dismissed the appeal.
4. The only real issue in this case is whether the plaintiff had any right to execute his judgment against the two pieces of land. That issue was discussed and answered against the plaintiff by the senior assistant registrar. The learned registrar whose decision and reasons were affirmed by the learned judicial commissioner held that the plaintiff could not execute his judgment against the defendant’s land because the defendant had no property in it. In our judgment this is an entirely correct finding.
5. It is settled by high authority ‘… that the vendors, after receipt of the full purchase price and surrender of possession of the lands to the appellants [the purchasers] are bare trustees for the appellants of the said land …’, per Ong Hock Sim FJ in Temenggong Securities Ltd & Anor v Registrar of Titles, Johore & Ors [1974] 2 MLJ 45. Equally, a vendor is regarded as having divested himself of all the beneficial interest in his land and vested it in the purchaser only at the time when the memorandum of transfer is executed and the purchase money is paid in full. See, Karuppiah Chettiar v Subramaniam [1971] 2 MLJ 116. And once there has been a divesting of beneficial ownership by a registered proprietor, his creditor cannot look to his land for satisfaction of any money judgment that may have been obtained. That is why you find Ong CJ (Malaya) saying in Karuppiah Chettiar v Subramaniam that (at p 118): It is trite law that when the court orders the sale of a judgment debtor’s property it cannot sell more than what the judgment debtor himself is entitled to sell. 当卖家收完买卖合约的卖价和交出产业的使用权给买家，虽然产业还是卖家的名字，还没有完成转名给买家，卖家就只是买家的受托人，产业的权力已经完全不属于卖家了。当卖家签了产业转移文件和收到全部的买卖卖价，在法律上，他就已经将他在产业全部的实益权益(beneficial interest)都转移给买家了。当卖家(业主)的受益拥有权(beneficial ownership)已经转移给买家，卖家的债权人是不能打此产业的主意用来还债了。
6. In the present instance, there is not a mere constructive trust that is imposed by law whenever there is a valid contract for sale (see M & J Frozen Food & Anor v Siland Sdn Bhd & Anor [1994] 1 MLJ 294; Ho Wah & Anor v United Malayan Banking Corp Bhd [1994] 2 MLJ 393; J Raju v Kwong Yik Bank Bhd & Anor [1994] 2 MLJ 408; Yeong Ah Chee v Lee Chong Hai & Anor and other appeals [1994] 2 MLJ 614; Chua Chee Hung & Ors v QBE Supreme Insurance Bhd [1990] 1 MLJ 480). This is a case where the defendant has expressly constituted himself a trustee for the intervener. So he had no attachable interest in the land in question. It follows that the plaintiff’s prohibitory order cannot stand and was rightly set aside. And we must emphasise that this is not a case in which the genuineness of the sale was challenged by the plaintiff. 被告已明确的变成第三方的受托人，他对此产业已经没有任何权益(attachable interest)。在这案件里，原告并没有挑战被告的第三方的买卖交易是否是真实还是虚假的。小编觉得如果以时间点来观察，买卖合约的日期和原告控告被告的日期很靠近，可能交易有猫腻，但是原告没有在额外向法庭申请宣判该买卖合约和交易是无效。
7. For the reasons already given, we found this to be an appeal devoid of any merit. Appeal was accordingly dismissed.

Source: Lee Kuet Chin v Garai ak Jelian (Tan Kok Sen, intervenor) [2006] 5 MLJ 342. Court of Appeal Putrajaya. Gopal Sri Ram, Siti Norma Yaakob and Haidar bin Mohd Noor JJCA.

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

*如果您需要聘请律师处理法律事务，请联系我们。

*如果您需要法律咨询(付费)，请联系我们。

*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.

*我们的律师楼网站拥有超过2000则法律文章，免费供民众阅读参考。欢迎填写您的资料，订阅我们的法律文章: www.kuekong.com

*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Telegram: https://t.me/LawAndJusticeGroup

*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

*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 #值得信赖的律师 #信得过的律师 #靠得住的律师 #靠谱的律师 #利害的律师 #有信誉的律师 #有声望的律师 #有名声的律师 #出名的律师 #有名的律师 #有实力的律师

Execution — Prohibitory order — Judgment debt — Sale of land — Issue document of title not delivered — Prohibitory order caused to be registered against the register document of title — Application to set aside prohibitory order — Whether plaintiff had any right to execute his judgment against the land

#申请拍卖土地 #申请拍卖 产业 #冻结土地 #冻结产业 #欠钱不还 #不还钱