In Malaysian land law, the rights of registered proprietors under the Torrens system are firmly protected. But what happens when someone claims a right to remain on land they do not legally own? Can a long-term occupant resist eviction by invoking equity, tenancy, or hardship?
This article draws lessons from several notable cases, shedding light on how Malaysian courts interpret such disputes and the principles they apply.
1. The Registered Owner’s Right to Possession
At the heart of most squatter cases lies the question: Does the occupant have any right that defeats the registered owner’s title?
In Lee Geik Khim v. Kajendaran Muniandy, the defendant sold a house to the plaintiffs, signed the SPA, and received full payment. Yet he refused to leave the property, claiming the SPA was only security for a loan. The court held that in the absence of fraud or illegality, the plaintiffs’ registered title was indefeasible under section 340 of the National Land Code (NLC). Oral claims could not override a valid written contract. The SPA and transfer were unambiguous.
Authority relied upon:
- Tindok Besar Estate v. Tinjar Co [1979]
- ss 91 & 92 of the Evidence Act 1950 (parol evidence rule)
- s 340 NLC (indefeasibility of title)
Similarly, in Wong Yew Kwan v. Wong Yu Ke, the defendant brother claimed a share in family land based on a promise by their mother. But the plaintiffs were the registered co-owners. The court reaffirmed that only fraud, forgery, or void instruments can defeat title. Mere sentimental or undocumented claims are insufficient.
Authorities relied on:
- Teh Bee v. K Maruthamuthu [1977]
- Wallingford v. Mutual Society [1880]
- Maine and New Brunswick Electrical Power Co v. Hart [1929]
2. The Role of Licences and Equity
In Ahmad Shazilly v. Nik Salma Zaidah, the defendant was allowed to build a house on land owned by her adopted sister. A statutory declaration and a Syariah court order were cited to justify her continued stay. The Court of Appeal held that the defendant was at most a gratuitous licensee, not a tenant or equitable owner.
The court emphasized that:
- A granted license does not constitute an encumbrance unless registered under s 215 NLC.
- The Syariah court order, while valid within its own sphere, does not confer registrable interest under the NLC.
Key holdings:
- Only registered interests bind transferees.
- Gratuitous licences are revocable.
- Any equity must be satisfied by the grantor, not a bona fide purchaser.
3. Long-Term Occupancy and Rent Payments
In Mahathir Mustafa v. Poh Kee Pou, the defendant had occupied a wooden house for over a decade. He had paid rent to the applicant’s father and claimed to have purchased the house (not the land) from a third party. The Court of Appeal declined to grant summary possession under O 89 of the Rules of Court 2012 due to triable issues.
Legal test under O 89:
- A summary judgment is improper if the defendant raises arguable issues, legal defences, or disputed facts (see Saw v. Hakim [1989] and Cow v. Casey [1949]).
This case highlights the importance of affidavit evidence in summary possession claims. Even if the squatter is unlikely to win, if there’s a dispute worth a full trial, the court should not evict summarily.
4. Claiming Through Agreements and the Need for Locus Standi
In Amir Hamzah Amir v. Normadiah Osman, the plaintiffs claimed rights under private agreements from the 1980s. However, they failed to extract letters of administration before suing on behalf of deceased persons. The court struck out their claim for lack of locus standi.
Key authorities relied on:
- Dato’ Ramesh Rajaratnam v. Datin Zaleha [2014]
- Ang Hoi Yin v. Sim Sie Hau [1968]
- Al Rashidy Kassim v. Rosman Roslan [2007]
This case reminds us that even well-documented agreements cannot be enforced in court without the proper legal standing.
Navigating Squatter Disputes under Malaysian Law
Across these cases, one principle stands tall: The registered proprietor has a strong presumption of right to possession. Any exception must be clearly proven—through law, not sympathy.
Occupants who:
- possess no registrable interest,
- rely on informal licences or promises,
- or assert vague equitable rights
…are unlikely to succeed unless their claims are supported by written contracts, registered instruments, or clear equitable estoppel.
From a legal advisory perspective:
- Ensure property transfers are documented and registered.
- Be cautious when allowing others to occupy your land—oral agreements are risky.
- If acting for a purchaser, conduct land searches and caveat checks.
- Serve proper notices before commencing legal action.
When handling cases involving squatters or long-term occupants, the critical questions are:
- Is the claimant’s right recognised by law?
- Is the owner’s title registered and indefeasible?
- Are there any triable issues or claims in equity?
If not, possession should follow title.
Key Principles Recognised in Squatter and Possession Disputes
1. Indefeasibility of Title under the National Land Code (NLC)
Courts consistently reaffirm the indefeasibility doctrine under section 340 of the National Land Code, which protects the rights of registered proprietors unless their title is vitiated by:
- Fraud
- Forgery
- Mistake or void instrument
- Operation of law
Approved Authorities:
- Teh Bee v. K Maruthamuthu [1977] 1 MLRA 110
- Tindok Besar Estate v. Tinjar Co [1979] 2 MLJ 229
- Frazer v. Walker [1967] 1 AC 569
- Ahmad Shazilly v. Nik Salma Zaidah [2014] 3 MLRA 188
The courts held that unregistered interests, even if supported by a Syariah Court order or statutory declaration, do not override registered title unless the exceptions under section 340(2) are satisfied.
2. Licence vs. Tenancy and the Limits of Equity
A gratuitous licence, even one extended for a long time or involving the building of a structure, does not give rise to a proprietary interest unless supported by clear equitable estoppel or constructive trust principles. The burden of proof is heavy, and equity must not contradict statute.
Approved Authorities:
- Inwards v. Baker [1965] 1 All ER 446
- Mok Deng Chee v. Yap See Hoi [1981] 1 MLRA 83
- Ahmad Shazilly v. Nik Salma Zaidah
- Wong Yew Kwan v. Wong Yu Ke
- Cahaya Ideal (M) Sdn Bhd v. Orang-Orang Yang Mengenali Diri Sebagai ‘Ponga’ [1999] 1 MLRH 528
3. Requirement of Particularised Pleadings of Fraud
Where fraud is alleged as a means of defeating title, the courts insist on particularisation. Vague allegations will be struck out. Fraud must be clearly pleaded and proven, or the court will not entertain the challenge.
Approved Authorities:
- Wallingford v. Mutual Society [1880] 5 App Cas 685
- Associated Leisure Ltd v. Associated Newspapers Ltd [1970] 2 QB 450
- Lee Kim Luang v. Lee Shiah Yee [1988] 1 MLJ 193
4. Possession Claims under Order 89 Rules of Court 2012
Summary possession proceedings under O 89 require the court to look only at affidavit evidence. If the defendant raises any triable issue, especially one involving disputed facts or legal rights, the court must decline to grant immediate possession.
Approved Authorities:
- Saw v. Hakim [1989] 5 TLR 72
- Cow v. Casey [1949] 1 KB 474
- The Electric and General Contract Corp v. Thomson Houston Electric Co [1895] 10 TLR 103
- Shaheen Abu Bakar v. PKNS [1998] 4 MLJ 233
5. Requirement of Locus Standi in Estate-Related Claims
A person cannot bring a legal action on behalf of a deceased estate without letters of administration. Courts are firm on this rule, though special circumstances may allow limited exceptions.
Approved Authorities:
- Dato’ Ramesh Rajaratnam v. Datin Zaleha [2015] 1 MLRA 41
- Ang Hoi Yin v. Sim Sie Hau [1968] 1 MLRH 386
- Selvarajah v. Official Administrator [1978] 2 MLJ 108
- Al Rashidy Kassim v. Rosman Roslan [2007] 1 MLRA 307
Key Takeaways for Landowners and Occupants
These cases demonstrate that the law leans heavily in favour of certainty of registered title, not sentiment or circumstance. Occupants, even longstanding ones, should regularise their status through tenancy agreements or equitable documentation. Registered owners should act early to assert rights and should serve clear notices before seeking legal remedies.
At the same time, courts are not blind to human hardship. In Mahathir Mustafa v. Poh Kee Pou, the Court of Appeal did not order summary eviction because the defendant, an elderly man caring for his disabled wife, showed a long-standing tenancy history and raised arguable equitable issues.
As lawyers, our role is to cut through these human complexities while guiding our clients toward legally sound outcomes. Eviction must be justified not just legally—but with dignity.
Important Notice
This article was prepared for educational and entertainment purposes. Please do not treat it as a substitute of legal advice from a competent legal practitioner. Please consult with a licensed lawyer before you take any action on its contents.
We provide paid consultations and other legal services in relation to squatter matters.