9.2.

4 Grounds for Entry

5 grounds of entry:

(a) First Ground

- s 320(1)(a): to prevent fraud and improper dealing

- A Registrar can enter his caveat on the application made by persons or representatives
of persons stipulated in s 320(1)(a), (b), (c) of NLC to prevent fraud or improper
dealing with their land.

- Boonsom Boonyanit v Adorna Properties Sdn. Bhd.

Court had the power under s.417(1) NLC to direct the registrar to enter registrar caveat
under s.320 to prevent fraud / improper dealing.

- Seet Soh Ngoh v Venkataswara Sdn. Bhd.

s.320(1)(a) empowers the registrar to enter his caveat for the prevention of fraud and
improper dealing.

(b) Second and Third Grounds

- s 320(1)(b) “interest”?
- Temenggong Securities Ltd & Anor v Registrar of Titles, Johore
A registrar’s caveat may not be entered over a piece of land in respect of which the lender
has parted with all the beneficial interest therein and merely holds the legal title thereto as
a bare trustee on behalf of the purchaser.

- Registrar of Titles, Johore v Temenggong Securities

per Lord Diplock
“Interest” – registrar is empowered to protect under s.320(1)(b) are confined to any
interest in the land that are recognized by the code as being either registrable / otherwise
entitled to protection

- A Registrar’s caveat can be entered to protect the interests of the Federation or the
State.
- The meaning of ‘interests’ in s 320(1)(b)(i) NLC, it has been interpreted to refer only
to interests in the land that are recognized by NLC either be registrable or entitled to
protection.
- Due to the new added paragraph (ba) inserted under s 320(1) has now eliminated the
requirement that the interest sought to be protected by a Registrar’s caveat must be an
interest in land.
- Accordingly, the Registrar may, if he thinks it necessary or desirable, enter such a
caveat in respect of any debt, whether secured or unsecured, due to Federation or the
State Authority.
- With the amendment, the Registrar is now given the option, which he did not have
before, to enter such caveat in the said circumstances.
- While the existence of a prior registered charge does not make it unlawful for the
Registrar to enter a Registrar’s caveat in respect of any debt, such a arrears of income
tax, due to the Federation, nevertheless whatever interest whether in land or otherwise
 that may be created or intended to be created under s 320(1)(ba) NLC cannot take
priority over the earlier registered charge.

(c) Fourth Ground

- s 320(1)(ba) – securing the debt
- Development & Commercial Bank v Land Administrator, Wilayah Persekutuan
Although a registrar’s caveat may be lawfully entered to secure any debt due to the federation
even if there is already an existing charge on the land
It cannot take priority over the prior registered charge which is indefeasible.

- MBF Finance Bhd. v PH Negeri Perak [1990] 3 MLJ 473

Removal on registrar’s caveat on the chargee’s application which also contained a claim for
declaration of the chargees right ranking in priority to that of the Inland Revenue Department.
Held: Even there was an existing charge, the Registrar of land administrator was entitled to
enter a caveat under s.320(1)(ba).
i) s.320(1)(ba) express statutory right for government department, such as Inland
Revenue Department in respect of any debt due to it from a landowner to request
a Register of Titles to enter a Registrar caveat.
ii) Onus on director general of Inland Revenue Department to satisfy that there is a
serious question to be tried
iii) Serious question – whether the Inland Revenue Department was a claim to an
interest.
iv) If Inland Revenue Department could prove there is a surplus remaining after the
debt is satisfied out of the surplus that should be protected.
In this case, the Inland Revenue Department cannot prove.

- MUI Finance v Pendaftar Hakmilik Shah Alam & Anor [1993] 1 MLJ 98 –
objective of s 320(1)(ba)
Where there is surplus after taking into account the debt due under the charge, the entry of the
caveat may not be challenged as the caveat may be necessary so as not to prejudice the right
of the government to have the land available to satisfy the debt out of the surplus in priority
to any other claimants other than the registered chargee. As such, the existence of a prior
registered charge will not prevent the registrar from entering the caveat, however, such caveat
will not have the effect of overriding a prior registered charges interest.

- OCBC v Pendaftar Hakmilik Negeri Kedah [1990] 2 MLJ 478

- Pendaftar Hakmilik Negeri Kedah v OCBC [1991] 2 MLJ 177 SC
Registrar’s caveat may be set aside if the registrar in exercising his discretion any proves for
purpose of s.320(1)(ba) fails to take relevant considerations into account such as the value of
the land, the debt due. Eg, does not considers or ignores the fact that the debt due on any
charge exceed the market value of the land, he will be regarded as having acted ultra vires the
said paragraph with the result that the caveat can be ordered by the court to be removed.

(d) Fifth Ground

- s 320(1)(c)
- protection of registrar pending correction of errors on register document of title.
(e) Power of court to enter Registrar’s caveat
- Discretion Registrar and section 417 NLC
- Tan Soo Bing v Tan Kooi Fook
A person who desires to have a Registrar’s caveat entered in respect of any land must
apply to the Registrar. He cannot go straight to the court under section 417 as the court can
only direct the Registrar to enter the Registrar’s caveat if the court does not agree with the
decision of the Registrar when exercising its appellant jurisdiction under s.418.
- Development & Commercial Bank Bhd v Land Administrator, Wilayah
Persekutuan & Anor
General principle: the decision of the Registrar in regard to the entry of or refusal to enter
a Registrar’s caveat is not open to challenge where the decision is correctly exercised.

- Agrimal Project Sdn Bhd vPendaftar Hakmilik, Pejabat Tanah dan Galian, Johor
& Ors
Held: Registrar’s exercise of discretion cannot be examined unless it was exercised mala
fide or ultra vires.

- Takako Sakao v Ng Pek Yuen & Anor

FC directed the Registrar to enter a Registrar’s caveat in the exercise of powers conferred
by section 417 of the NLC. The FC opined that it is settled law that it has ample
jurisdiction to make consequential orders to give effect to its judgment, including directing
the entry of Registrar’s caveat and to ensure that its judgment in particular cases is not
defeated by intervening events.

- Boonsom Boonyanit v Adorna Properties Sdn. Bhd.

Yes!! To prevent fraud / improper dealing

9.2.5 Duration
(a) Removal / Cancellation of Registrar’s Caveat
- A Regsirars Caveat will be in force until cancelled by the Registrar in the following
circumstances:
- i) section 321(3)(a): Removed by the Registrar on his own motion
- ii)section 321(3)(b): On the application by the proprietor of the caveated land pursuant
- iii) section 321(3)(c): By a Court order
Procedure

- Gabriel Ngu Choo Kiong v Julia Voon Tan Choo [1998] 1 AMR 69
Mode to application on removal of registrar’s caveat -- Originating Summons

- Development &Commercial Bank v Land Administrator, Wilayah Persekutuan

An
Issue: whether a charge who is not aware of the entry to the Registrar Caveat or who has
not objected to the entry of the caveat in the first instance has the right to appeal pursuant
to s 418 of the NLC?
Under section 321(3) of the NLC read together with section 418 of the NLC, in the
absence of the right to apply for cancellation and as well as the absence of express appeal
provision, the charge can only appeal against the decision of the Registrar to enter the
caveat but not against the decision refusing to cancel the caveat.
Aggrieved party who does not object to the entry of a registrar’s caveat may subsequently
apply for declaratory relief to set it aside as he has no right to apply for its cancellation / to
appeal against the registrar decision refusing its cancellation.

- Public Bank v Pengarah Tanah & Galian JB & Anor

In an appeal by an aggrieved case under s.418, the period of 3 months run from the date of
communication of the registrar’s decision to enter the caveat and not from the date of
registrar’s decision refusing the chargee’s application for cancellation.