Security Transaction: Charge Charge is a conveyance of land, lease or undivided as security for repayment of money. The land, lease and undivided share are pledged to the creditor as security for any money advance by the creditor or to guarantee the payment of money. In the event that the debtor fails to make repayment of the money, the creditor can use the land, lease or undivided share to recover the money advanced by him. The creditor in a charge transaction is called the chargee while the person who use his land, lease or undivided share as security in called the chargor. The debtor may be the chargor in case he used his own land, lease or undivided share as security for the loan. A third party charge is used to described a charge transaction where the chargor used his land, lease or undivided share to secure loan given to a debtor other than then the chargor. 3.2.2 Charge vs. Mortgage One should differentiate charge with a mortgage under English land law. In Mortgage the legal title to the land is vested in the mortgagee. The mortgagor only has a right in equity to redeem the land from the mortgagee upon the repayment of the loan to the mortgagee. No Mortgage Charge 1 FormationFormed under the principles of the common law FormationFormed under the provisions of the National Land Code 1965 that requires registration. 2 FeaturesThe title to the land is transferred to the mortgagee with the mortgagor having a right in equity for redemption (get the land to be retransferred to him) FeaturesThe title to the land remains with the chargor. The chargee acquires an interest in the land that the land is
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
Security Transaction: Charge
Charge is a conveyance of land, lease or undivided as security for repayment of
money. The land, lease and undivided share are pledged to the creditor as security
for any money advance by the creditor or to guarantee the payment of money. In the
event that the debtor fails to make repayment of the money, the creditor can use the
land, lease or undivided share to recover the money advanced by him. The creditor
in a charge transaction is called the chargee while the person who use his land,
lease or undivided share as security in called the chargor. The debtor may be the
chargor in case he used his own land, lease or undivided share as security for the
loan. A third party charge is used to described a charge transaction where the
chargor used his land, lease or undivided share to secure loan given to a debtor
other than then the chargor.
3.2.2 Charge vs. Mortgage
One should differentiate charge with a mortgage under English land law. In Mortgage
the legal title to the land is vested in the mortgagee. The mortgagor only has a right
in equity to redeem the land from the mortgagee upon the repayment of the loan to
the mortgagee.
No
Mortgage
Charge
1
FormationFormed under the principles of the common law
FormationFormed under the provisions of the National Land Code 1965 that requires
registration.
2
FeaturesThe title to the land is transferred to the mortgagee with the mortgagor
having a right in equity for redemption (get the land to be retransferred to him)
FeaturesThe title to the land remains with the chargor. The chargee acquires an
interest in the land that the land is liable as a security for the loan.
3
RemediesMortgagee is entitle to foreclose the land (sell it to third party)
RemediesChargee entitle to remedies provided by the NLC:a. Order for saleb. Take
possession
Mortgage is not recognised by the code. See Section 205(1)
Bank Bumiputra Berhad v Doris Development Sdn. Bhd. (1988) 1 MLJ 462
The plaintiff granted the defendant an overdraft facility that was secured by a charge
over a piece of land belongs to a company. The plaintiff sued the defendant for the
sum of money. The counsel for the company submitted that the charge executed by
the company was an English mortgage at common law or a transaction exactly like
such an English mortgage.
Held: The court made a distinction between a Charge and a Mortgage. Justice Peh
Swee Chin at page 463
"In the first place, the premise that a charge under the National Land Code is the
same as an English mortgage at common law is patently erroneous. A charge is
governed by detailed statutory provisions of the National Land Code while an English
mortgage at common law was a horse of a different colour altogether.............. In an
English mortgage at common law, the mortgaged property was transferred to the
name of the mortgagee on the creation of the mortgage with a proviso for
redemption. Under the said provision, the mortgagee agreed to re-transfer the
mortgage property by a certain date beyond which it was stated to be irredeemable.
Equity stepped in and provided the equity of redemption, by which the right to
redeem was extended beyond the said date and would be lost only on foreclosure or
sale."
see also
Mahadevan s/o Mahalingam v Manilai & Son (M) Sdn. Bhd. (1984) 1 MLJ 266,
(1986) 1 MLJ 357 PC
One Mr. Ratnavale received a sum of money from the appellant on a security of a
piece of land. It was the common intention of the appellants and Mr. Ratnavale to
have the said land charged to the appellant as temporary security. A charge was
never registered.Salleh Abbas CJ at page 270 FC
"Our land law does not recognised a mortgage if it means a mortgage in the sense of
English land law whereby the legal estate, i.e. ownership of the land is transferred to
the mortgagee and what is left with the mortgagor is only an equitable right to
redeem, known as equity of redemption. But our land law certainly recognises a
mortgage in the sense of Torren system, referred to by text written as Torren
mortgage in which the mortgagor retains the legal ownership whilst the mortgagee
acquires statutory right to enforce his security."
3.2.3 Interest acquired by chargee
Chargee has interest in the land charged to him.
Ho Giok Chay v Nik Aishah (1961) 1 MLJ 49
The applicant not being a 'Malay' under s. 7 of the Malay Reservations Enactment
obtained 3 charges from the respondent to secure the repayment of certain loans.
The charge was duly registered. The applicant applied for order for sale.Held: The
charge was null and void.
Hepworth J at page 51
"..... the question with which we are concerned is not whether the charge transfers or
vests a right or interest to or in the chargee but whether that right or interest is a right
or interest in land?"
In answer to the issue the judge at page 52-53:
"By section 136 if such default is made, the chargee is at liberty to issue summons to
call the proprietor of the charge land before the court to show cause why the land
subject to the charge should not be sold by public auction ........... It is difficult to see
what the power given to the chargee by section 136 can be unless it be a right or
interest in land."
The chargee has no right or interest in land.
T. Bariam Singh v Pegawai Pentadbir Pesaka, Malaysia (1983) 1 MLJ 232
The issue before the court was whether the defendant in depositing a Malay
Reservation land title with the plaintiff as security for a loan, rendered the contract of
loan null and void.
Held: There is no provision in either the Malay Reservation Enactment or the Land
Enactment that prohibits such deposit of title and such deposit of title was therefore
not illegal.
Mohamed Zahir J at page 235
"I am, however of the opinion these rights of the chargee do not in any manner
confer any right or interest in the land charged in the chargee"
3.2.4 Statutory Charge
Sections 241-280
Section 241(1): Subject matter of chargei. Whole of land.ii. Whole of undivided
share.iii. Lease (including sub-lease)
Section 241(3): Power to charge is subject to:
i. Prohibition or limitation imposed by NLC and any other written law.
Prohibition/Limitation imposed by NLC.
Section 241: Cannot create chare in favour of TWO or more persons unless each of
them in trust relation.
Prohibition/Limitation imposed by other written law.
a. Prohibition to create a charge over Malay Reserved Land to in favour of non-
Malay.
b. Prohibition to charge land under Group Settlement Act.
ii. Limitation imposed by restriction in interest to which the land is subject.
iii. In relation to creating a charge over lease any express or implied term between
lessor and lessee. See section 231(1)(d): An implied condition in the absence of
express condition to the contrary that the lessee could not charge lease without
written consent of the lessor.
Section 241(2): Power to charge including power to create subsequent
charge.Proprietor can create more than one charge over a subject matter of charge.
No limitation is imposed by the NLC.
Section 242(1): Form 16A- charge for the repayment of debt or repayment of sum
other than debt
(2): Form 16B- charge for the payment of any annuity or other periodic sum.
Section 243: Charge shall take effect upon registration.
3.2.4.1 Effect of registered charge
Upon registration the land, lease or undivided share is liable as security. The
chargee can rely to all the remedial provisions of the NLC in case of default by the
chargor. The effects of a registered charge are as follows:
a. If the land is subsequently transferred, the transferee of the land will take the land
subject to the charge. See Section 215(3).
b. The remedies of sale (Section 253) or taking possession (Section 271) are
available in case the chargor defaulted in making repayment of the loan.
c. The Chargee acquired an interest in the land that is capable of assignment. He
can transfer the charge. See Section 214(1)(d).
d. The chargor can only lease the land with the chargee's consent that the chargee
cannot unreasonable withhold. See Section 251.
3.2.4.2 Effect of Unregistered Charge
Charge is void but the agreement to create the charge is still valid and can be
enforced by specific performance.
Mahadevan s/o Mahalingam v Manilai & Son (M) Sdn. Bhd. (1984) 1 MLJ 266,
(1986) 1 MLJ 357 PC
One Mr. Ratnavale received a sum of money from the appellant on a security of a
piece of land. It was the common intention of the appellants and Mr. Ratnavale to
have the said land charged to the appellant as temporary security. A charge was
never registered.
Salleh Abbas CJ at page 270 FC
"Thus when section 21(1) of our limitation act speaks of a 'mortgage', it must mean a
'charge' as understood and provided for in Part Sixteen of our National Land
Code........... That being the case, the words 'other charge on land' in the section
(refering to section 21(1) of Limitation Act) in our view must be the other types of
encumbrances to which the land is subjected. These could be an equitable charge or
lien, statutory or equitable, which arise as a result of depositing a title with the
lender."
Malayan Banking Berhad v Zahari Bin Ahmad (1988) 2 MLJ 135
The defendant owed the plaintiff a certain amount of money based on a loan
agreement cum assignment. Defendant defaulted in repayment and the plaintiff
applied for an order for possession of the property and order that they are at liberty
to sell.
Held : Order granted
Mohamed Dzaiddin J at page 136:
"Looking at the loan agreement and the deed of assignment in the present
application, in my opinion these documents created an equitable charge both in form
and substance."
See also
Oriental Bank v Chup Seng Restaurant (1990) 3 MLJ 493
Tan See Hock v D & C Bank (1993) 3 MLJ 250
3.2.5 Remedies available to chargee
1. Order for Sale (See Section 253 - 269)2. Taking Possession (See Section 270 -
277)
3.2.5.1 Effect of Unregistered Charge
National Land Code 1965
Sections 253,254 and 255
The Court or Land Administrator shall grant an order to sell the charge property in a
public auction upon the application of the chargee. The proceeds of the sale will be
used to pay the amount due under the charge.
3.2.5.2 Statutory Notices
Before the chargee could apply for an order for sale from the Court or the Land
Administrator, he must cause to be served a statutory notice in one of the forms
specified by the NLC on the chargor.
i. Forms 16D (Section 254).
If there is breach (whether the breach is in respect of repayment of money advanced
to chargor or any other provision of the charge agreement) has continued for one
month, the chargee can cause to be served on the chargor form 16D. See Section
254.
Form 16D is a notice to inform the chargor of the followings:
a. Specifying the breach
b. Requiring the breach to be remedied within one month from the date it was served
on the chargor.
c. Warning that if it is not remedied then, the chargor will apply for an order for sale
of the charged property.
ii. Form 16E (Section 255)
In the event that there is a clause in the charge agreement that empowers the
chargee to demand principal sum from the chargor, the chargor may issue Form 16E
on the chargor for the payment of the principal sum advanced to him within one
month from the date the form is served on the chargor. If the chargor fails to pay the
sum demanded within the one-month period, the chargee may apply for an order for
the sale of the charged property, without having to serve a notice in form 16D. See
Section 255.
Differences between Form 16D and 16E
1. The condition precedent for the issuance of Form 16E is a clause in the charge
agreement demanding the principal sum.
2. The fact that Section 255 did not make any reference to Section 253 support.
3. Condition precedent for the issuance of Form 16D is a breach that has continued
for a minimum period of one month.
Eliathamby v Sheikh Mohd Said. (1970) 2 MLJ 190.
In this case Form 16E was used when there was a breach of the charge agreement
but the charge agreement has no provision that allows the chargee to demand for
the principal sum. The Court decided that Form 16E was wrongly used.
Sharma J at page 195:
"If the principal sum secured by the charge is payable on demand it can only be by
virtue of an agreement between the chargor and the chargee. In such a case a
demand by the chargee is a condition precedent to the liability of the chargor and the
coming into existence of the chargee's right under the charge or under the National
Land Code....... The charge executed by was not a charge to which section 255 of
the National Land Code applied. The only valid and effective notice to give was the
notice under section 254 of the National Land Code and this he failed to do so."
V.A.M Hussain v BP Malaysia Sdn. Bhd. (1970) 2 MLJ 69
In this case as the principal sum secured by the charge was payable on demand, the
court held that respondent had used the correct form i.e. Form 16EIn the
circumstances where there has been a breached as well as a clause demanding for
principal sum, either Form 16D or 16E can be used. Jacob v Oversea-Chinese
Banking Corp. (1974) 2 MLJ 161
The appellant had charged his land to the respondent to secure the repayment of an
overdraft. On default of payment, the respondent served Form 16D and
subsequently applied for an order for sale. The appellant argued that Form 16E
should have been used.
Held: The demand in Form 16D was valid.
Suffian L.P. at page 163
"The language of subsection (1) of section 255 would seem to indicate that if the
chargee had made its demand by using Form 16E it need not have followed it up
with by also serving notice by Form 16D, but that if it did not first use Form 16E it
would be all right if it used only Form 16D. The object of the legislation is to see that
sufficient notice is given to the chargor before the chargee applies for an order for
sale, and in my judgment here the chargee has given the chargor sufficient notice
before coming to court."
Which form to use if the chargee also demand interest?
Mary Michael v United Malayan Banking Corporation (1971) 1 MLJ 172
Although the principal sum was payable on demand, the chargee was seeking to
recover also the interest that had become due and payable and therefore the notice
in Form 16D was the appropriate notice.
Either form can be used when the chargee is also claiming for interest.
Jacob v Oversea-Chinese Banking Corp.(1974) 2 MLJ 161. FC
Lee Hun Hoe C.J. (Borneo) at page 164:
"It seems that controversy always as to whether Form 16E or 16D should be used in
this type of cases. I do not agree that if one is demanding pricipal and interest one
would have to use Form 16D but if principal only is demanded then Form 16E must
be used. I see no reason why the words "AND INTEREST" cannot be added to the
heading of Form 16E with the appropriate amount of interest inserted showing
separately clearly the principal sum plus the interest to make up a particular amount
which is demanded."
Central Malayan Finance v Loke Kok Lai (1975) 1 MLJ 160 HC
In this case as the sum sought to be satisfied was the aggregate sum consisting of
the balance of the principal sum together with interest accumulated as at that date,
the applicant should have used Form 16D and not Form 16E.
see also
Kandiah Peter v Public Bank Bhd (1994) 1 MLJ 119
Siong Holding Sdn Bhd v D & C Bank (1997) 1 MLJ 340
Syarikat Kewangan Melayu Raya Bhd. v Malayan Banking Bhd. (1986) 2 MLJ 253
OCBC v Lean Seng Pottery Sdn. Bhd.
3.2.5.3 Order for Sale by Court
Section 256 - 259
Meaning of the existence of cause to the contrary" in section 256(3)
If the court grants an order for sale it would be contrary to some rule of law or some
rule of equity.
Keng Soon Finance Bhd. v MK. Retnam Holdings Sdn. Bhd. (1989) 1 MLJ 458
The developer in this case obtained bridging finance from the chargee to develop its
land to be sold of the sub-purchasers. The loan is to be disbursed progressively. The
chargee released the first progress payment. When the developer failed to pay the
interest on the first progress payment, the chargee called off the deal. The chargor
requested the release of further amount from the chargee including submitting an
architect certificate to the chargee to inform of the progress of the development. The
chargee did not heed to all request made by the chargor.
Instead the chargee applied for an order for sale of the charged property to recover
the first progress payment released to the chargor.
The Privy Council decided that there was no existence of cause to the contrary.
Order for sale should be granted.
Lord Oliver of Aylmerton at page 460:
"Section 256(3) of the National Land Code is mandatory. The court 'shall' order a
sale unless it is satisfied of the existence of 'cause to the contrary'. Granted that
these words have been construed in Malaysia as justifying the withholding of an
order where to make one would be contrary to some rule of law or equity, they
clearly cannot extend to enabling the court to refuse relief simply because it feels
sorry for the borrower or because it regards the lender as arrogant, boorish or
unmannerly."
Low Lee Lian v Ban Hin Lee Banking Bhd. [1997] 1 MLJ 77
Appellant created a third party charge. When the borrower defaulted in making
repayment, the bank applied for an order for sale.
Federal Court Held that 'cause to the contrary' within s. 256(3) of the Code might be
established only in three categories of cases.
Gopal Sri Ram JCA at page 82
1. When the chargor was able to bring his case within any of the exceptions to the
indefeasibility doctrine in s 340 of the Code:
2. When the chargor could demonstrate that the chargee had failed to meet the
conditions' precedent for the making of an application for an order for sale:
3. When the chargor could demonstrate that the grant of an order for sale would be
contrary to some rule of law or equity.
3.2.5.4 Granting OFS would be contrary to some rule of law
1. The charge is void on the ground of fraud
Most application for order for sale was challenged on the basis that the charge
acquired by the chargee is defeasible because it was obtained under any of the
circumstances in Section 340(2)
Public Finance Bhd. v Narayanaswamy (1971) 2 MLJ 32
The chargor subdivided his land and sold it off to sub-purchasers. He charged the
same land for a bridging finance in favour of the chargee, who knew that the land
had been fragmented, sold and some of the sub-purchasers had even gone onto
possession of their respective portion. The Chargor defaulted in making repayment
of the bridging loan and the chargor applied for order for sale from the court. In an
application for an order for sale the sub-purchasers contented when the charge was
registered, the chargor disregard the unregistered interest of the third party.
The court had refused to grand order for sale.
Ong C.J (Malaya) at page 33:
"The appellants' insistence that the interveners had no rights whatsoever except a
right to damages against the respondent for breach of contract is so plainly
unconscionable that we are not at all suprised that the judge was driven to find fraud
and collusion."
Fraud must be actual fraud not constructive fraud and it must have been committed
at before or at the time the charge in question was registeredTai Lee Finance v
Official Assignee (1983) 1 MLJ 81
Abdul Hamid F. J at page 84:
"The law is therefore settled that while subsection (1) of section 340 makes it
abundantly clear that the title or interest of a registered proprietor which includes a
chargee shall be indefeasible, such title or interest, however, by reason of
subsection (2), shall not indefeasible in a case of actual fraud involving .........
"dishonesty of some sort, not what is called constructive fraud or equitable fraud."
and at page 85:
"The fraud complained of must be that which resulted in registration of the Charge"
2. The charge is bad in law for non-complience with money Lending Ordinance 1951
Phuman Singh v Khoo Kwang Choon (1965) 2 MLJ 189
A charge document is a document of debts & should be registered in court as
required under Section 3 & 4 of the Money Lending Ordinance 1951 when the
charge is registered in favour of a money lender under the meaning of money
lending ordinance. In this case the charge was not registered as required.
When the Chargee (money lender) applied for an order for sale it's validity was
challenged. The Court decided that the fact that it was not registered was a cause to
contrary within the meaning of Section 256(3)
see also
Associated Corporation Ltd. v Poomani [1972] 1 MLJ 117
3. Non Compliance of statutory notices.
Eliathamby v Sheikh Mohd Said. (1970) 2 MLJ 190.
Sharma J at page 195:
"The charge executed was not a charge to which section 255 of the National Land
Code applied. The only valid and effective notice to give was the notice under
section 254 of the National Land Code and this he failed to do so."
4. Application made to wrong tribunal.
Section 256 & 260 NLC
Tan Teng Pan v Wong Fook Shang (1973) MLJ 31
It was held that in the case of land held under Land Office title, the court has no
jurisdiction to order the sale of that land at the instances of an application by a
chargee.
5. Charge was registered contrary to restriction in interest.
United Malayan banking Corp. Bhd. v Syarikat Perumahan Luas Sdn. Bhd. (No 2)
[1988] 3 MLJ 352
The chargor apply to set aside an order for sale of sale relating certain land charged
to UMBC on the ground that it was void. The charge was registered in breach of an
express restriction in interest endorsed on the document of title.Held allowed the
application.
Edgar Joseph Jr. J at page 356:
"..... the charge having been registered in breach of an explicit statutory prohibition
imposed on the title to the charged land pursuant to the provision of the Code, the
title or interest of the chargee is defeasible since registration thereof had been
obtained by means of an insufficient or void instrument (s.340(2)(b)) and also
because the Registrar of Title, in registering the charge, had acted ultra vires the
powers conferred upon him: s. 340(2)(c)."
3.2.5.5 Granting OFS would be contrary to rule of equity
1. When the chargor hads turned to thirdparty to redeem the charged property and
had infact collected the redemption sums from the thirdparty, they were under some
equitable duty so as to grant an order would be contrary to the rule of equity
acquired by the thirdparty.
Kuching Plaza Sdn. Bhd. v Bank Bumiputra Malaysia Bhd. (1991) 3 MLJ 163.
The developer charged the land including the building on it to the chargor. Parcels in
the building were sold to the sub-purchasers. The developer is unable to make
repayment of the loan and the chargee applies for an order for sale. The Supreme
Court decides that the chargee had looked toward the sub-purchaser of the parcels
to redeem the property charged by the developer. There is evidence that the
chargee had collected the redemption sums from the sub-purchaser to satisfy the
loan. Therefore they cannot turn around to say that the developer had breach the
term of payment for the loan. The court is off the opinion that these were valid
circumstances and it would be unjust for the chargee to foreclose the charge
because if the court granted the order it would be contrary to the rule of equity.
2. Granting an order for sale when the chargee had knowledge that the land was
previously sold to the third party prior to the registration of the charge in their favour
would be contrary to the rule of equity.
Oversea Chinese Banking Corporation v Lee Tan Hwa (1989) 1 MLJ 261.
The land owner charged his land to the chargee to secure an overdraft facility. When
the chargor failed to make repayment of the loan they applied for an order for sale.
The intervener in this proceeding had challenged the application on the ground that
the chargee had knowledge that the land was prior than that sold to the intervener
under a sale and purchase agreement. The knowledge was imputed to the chargee
since the same solicitor act for both transactions. If the court granted the order it
would be contrary to the rule of equity.
Buxton v Supreme Finance (M) Berhad (1992) 2 MLJ 481
Supreme Court decided that the interest of bona fide purchaser for value cannot
prevail over the interest of the chargee. When the sub-purchaser having executed
the sale and purchase agreement with the notice of the charge, they must accept the
purchase subject to the registered charge and the indefeasibility of title of the
chargee. The indefeasibility of the chargee's interest was not effected by the
chargor's conduct, however unconscienable or deceitful it may be. Unless it can be
shown that there was collusion between then chargor and the chargee to defeat the
interest of the a third party.
3.2.5.6 Order for sale by Land Administrator
Section 260 - 265
The application for an order for sale made to the Land Administrator must be in Form
16G. Section 260(2). When the Land Administrator received Form 16G from the
chargee, he shall fixed a date for an enquiry. The chargee shall be notified of that
date, while summon will be served on the chargor for him to make representation at
enquiry to be held thus show cause why the order for sale should not be made. See
Section 261.
At the conclusion of the enquiry the, the Land Administrator shall order the sale of
the charged property. But if he is satisfied that there are existence of cause to the
contrary or cause for not given the order, he may denied the application for order for
sale by the Chargee. See Section 263(1)
Land Administrator has no power or authority to look beyond what appear on the
register.
Suppiah v Pannompalam (1963) MLJ 202
The chargor argued that the Collector of Land Revenue should have accepted his
story as how he came to sign the charge instrument. The Court decided that the
Collector was bound to accept the register.
Thompson C.J. at page 204
"In the present proceedings, the Collector was bound to accept the register and one
he was satisfied that the charge with which he was concerned was on the register
then the only question for him to decide was whether or not there had been default in
the payments provided for. If he was not so satisfied he could make no order."
Gurpal Singh v Kananayer (1976) 2 MLJ 34
The chargor opposed an application for an order for sale before the Land
Administrator, by challenging the validity of the charge on the ground of fraud,
misrepresentation, forgery, insufficient instrument and void instrument, thus the
interest vest in the chargee is defeasible under Section 340(2) and should set-aside.
The court ordinarily hears these grounds. The court decided that the land
Administrator has no power to investigate into the circumstances as how the chargor
came create the charge in favour of the chargor.
The Land Administrator is bound to make an order for sale at the end of the enquiry
and non other.
Government of Malaysia v Omar Hj. Ahmad (1983) 1 MLJ 242.
The Land Administrator ordered that the chargor should pay the arrears due to the
chargee by way of installments without prior consent from the chargee. Court
decided that the Land Administrator was wrong. Since there are causes to the
contrary, the Land Administrator should order that the land to be sold by public
auction. He has no power under Section 263 to order that the arrears to be paid by
installment.
When the Land Administrator had granted an order for sale he is Functus-officio. He
cannot cancel or alter the order that he made.
Lim Yoke Foo v Eu Finance Bhd. (1985) 1 MLJ 17
In the as the result of administrative mistake the the first order for sale was followed
by another order for sale that was supposed to amend the first order and recourt an
indeptness amount smaller then the first order. The court decided that the Land
Administrator has no power whatsoever to cancel such order once it is made.
Only the Court can make any cancellation or alteration to the order made by the
Land Administrator.
Malayan United Bank Berhad v Cheam Kim Yu (1991) 1 MLJ 313
The chargee obtained an order for sale to sell off the charged property.
Subsequently with their consent the land was sold to the intervener under a Sale and
Purchase agreement. The intervener wished to set-aside the order made by the
court.
The court decided that it has the power to set-aside the order made by the Land
Administrator after the land was sold to the intervener with the consent of the
chargee even though the Land Administrator had granted an order for sale.
3.2.5.7 Civil Suit vs. OFS
Bank Bumiputra Malaysia Berhad v Esah Bt. Hj. Abdul Ghani (1986) 1 MLJ 16
The appellant lent money to the principal debtor and as security took a charge over
land belonging to the principal debtor and two others. The respondent was a
guarantor for the loan. The principal debtor failed to pay the loan. The appellant
applied for an order for sale but did not proceed with it. Instead took a proceeding
against the respondent as guarantor.
The court held that the chargee could pursue all remedies available to him under the
law when the borrower defaults. He can institute an action for the recovery of debts
as well as foreclosure proceedings on the property. The two actions are not the
same.
See also
Co-operative Central Bank v Balaka Suria Sdn. Bhd. (1991) 3 MLJ 45
HongKong & Shanghai Banking Corp. Ltd. v Wan Mohd Bin Wan Ngah (1991) 3 MLJ
119
The chargor bought a house and to assist him the purchase of the house, he
charged the house to the chargee. The chargor defaulted in making repayment to
the chargee. The chargee apply for an order for sale. At the same time he also filed
a civil action for the recovery of debts against the chargor.
Lamin J. in his judgment on the question whether the chargee was entitled in law to
proceed by way of a civil suit before first realising the security under the charge and
if so, whether he was entitled to proceed concurrently on all the remedies?He said
the Land Administrator is a competent tribunal under the law where the chargee
could obtain a complete remedy. To allow the chargee to proceed with the civil suit in
court for the recovery of debt must be treated as a case of abuse of the process of
the court.
3.2.5.8 Effect of Sale
The land will be sold off by public auction either with the assistance from the court
(See Section 259) or from the Land Administrator (See Section 265). At the
conclusion of the sale the successful Bidder after paying full purchased price shall be
issued with a Certificate of Sale in form 16F (from the Court) or form 16I (from the
Land Administrator).
The certificate of sale given to the purchaser shall be treated for all purposes as an
instrument of dealing (See Section 292) of dealing and can be registered. See
Section 267. When it is registered the title or the interest of the chargor shall pass to
and vest in the name of the purchaser, freed and discharged from all the charge in
question and any other subsequent charge, as if the chargor had transferred the
charged property to the successful bidder.
The charge in respect of the land had been discharge. Not only that all subsequent
charges in respect of the charge is also discharged. This does not bar the chargee to
recover from the chargor in personal action based on the charge agreement. Section
206(3) stipulated that nothing in the NLC shall have effect on any contractual
operation of any transaction relating to lanf. Since the chargor has an obligation
under the charge agreement to make repayment of the loan advanced to him. He
can be sued personally for that obligation to pay.
He will take the land subject to any other registered interest in the land.If there is a
registered easement over the land then the successful bidder shall take the land
subject to the easement. See Section 267(1)(b) stipulates that all the provisions in
Part Fourteen shall apply to the successful bidder. According to Section 214(3)(a) a
transferee of a piece of land will take the land subject to all registered interest on the
land.
With regards to tenancy, whether the successful bidder will take the land subject to
the tenancy or not. It can be divided into two situations.
Tenancy granted after the charge.
Tenancy was created after the creating of the charge it will not bind the successful
bidder unless there has been an endorsement as per required by Section 316 prior
to the registration of the Certificate of Sale. See Section 267(2)
Tenancy granted prior to the charge.
Tenancy was created prior to the registartion of the charge, it will not bind the
successful purchaser unless if it has been endorsed prior to the date of the
registration of the charge. See Section 267(2).
The successful bidder should not worry himself whether the money paid by him is
sufficient or not to settle all the money secured the charge or any subsequent
charge. He is protected by Section 269 which provided as long as he/the successful
bidder had paid all the money for the price he bid, he shall not be concerned to see
the application of the money.
The application of the purchase money shall be made in accordance with Section
268. According to that section, the proceeds from the sale shall be applied as
follows:
(a) Payment any rent or out going due to the State Authority or the Local Authority. If
the subject matter of the sale is a lease, any payment to the Lessor.
(b) Payment of any expences incurred in connection with the sale.
(c) Payment to the chargee of the total amount due under the charge at the time of
the sale.
(d) Payment of annuity or other periodic sum if the charge is to secure the payment
of annuity or the periodic sum towards any payment subsequently falling.
(e) Payment off subsequent charges in order of its priority.
3.2.5.9 Remedy of Taking Possession
Another remedy available to the chargor if the chargee defaulted is by way of taking
possession of the land or lease. See Section 270(1)
The power to take possession can only be exercise by the first chargee. See Section
270(2). Second and subsequent chargee can exercise the remedy to take
possession if the Minister makes an order allowing the subsequent chargee to take
possession upon the recommendation of the National Land Council. See Section
270(3).
Limitation of taking possession
See Section 270(1)(a), (aa) and (b)
1. It cannot be exercise to land held under Land Office title or Qualified title
corresponding the land office title.
2. It shall not be exercise in case the subject matter of the charge is an undivided
share.
3. If the land is a village land or town land held by the Registry Office, it can only be
exercise if the chargor is not occupation of the land.
Types of Taking Possession
Possession may be taken in two ways:
1. Taking Actual Possession. See Section 271(1)(b)