Pendaftar Hakmilik Negeri Kedah v Oversea-Chinese Banking Corp Ltd

The issue in this case is whether Registrar has wrongly exercised his discretion to enter Registrar’s Caveat on a charged land.

Based on the fact of the case, the proprietor of the land had executed four separate charges in favour of the respondent. Also, due to the large amount of debt owed by proprietor, respondent had obtained order for sale of the said land from the High Court. However, the land also was subject to the debt owed to Inland Revenue in Kedah. In order to make land owner satisfy the debt due to Inland Revenue, the Department of Inland Revenue had sent letter to Registrar requesting him to enter caveat on the said land under Section 320 (1)(ba) of National Land Code 1965. The Registrar then entered caveat on the said land then sent letter confirming the entry of caveat to both Inland Revenue and also respondent. Feeling aggrieved with that action, respondent under Section 418 made an appeal to the Alor Setar High Court contended that Registrar had acted ultra vires to the power given under Section 320(1)(ba). The Court the allowed the appeal by respondent and make and order for Registrar to remove the caveat. However, registrar then make an appeal against such order contended he had acted judiciously under Section 320(1)(ba). In the Supreme Court of Kuala Lumpur, the judges held that Registrar in entering caveat upon the said land, did not make any consideration over the charge made by respondent. Also, Registrar before entering such caveat, should had inspected the amount debt due by land owner to respondent, debt due to federation, as well as the market price of the land. If the debt due to charge is larger than market price, then caveat should never be entered because land owner can never satisfy the liability to federation.

Therefore, it was held that learned judge did not erred in making decision, and Registrar had acted ultra vires to the power given. Appeal dismissed.