IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF MALAYSIA
(APPELLATE JURISDICTION) CIVIL APPEAL NO: P-02-3479-2010
THIRUNAVUKARASU @ AP N.R.N.
THIRUNAVUKARASU A/L N.R.N. ACHARI … APPELLANT
SRI DATA SDN BHD
[In the matter of suit no: 24-673-2009 In the High Court of Malaya in Penang]
THIRUNAVUKARASU @ AP N.R.N. THIRUNAVUKARASU A/L N.R.N. ACHARI
SRI DATA SDN BHD
Zaharah binti Ibrahim, JCA Mohamad Ariff bin Md Yusof, JCA Hamid Sultan Bin Abu Backer, J
Hamid Sultan Bin Abu Backer, J (Delivering Judgment of The Court)
 The appellant’s/plaintiff’s appeal came up for hearing on 10-122012 and on the same day we heard the appeal and allowed the same. My learned sister Zaharah binti Ibrahim, JCA and Mohamad Ariff bin Md Yusof, JCA have read the draft judgment and approved the same.
 The plaintiff is the owner of the property in dispute. The respondent/defendant is the purported purchaser of the property and has placed a caveat on the said property. The plaintiff’s action by way of originating summons is seeking the removal of the caveat. And the prayers read as follows:
“1. Bahawa Kaveat Persendirian Perserahan No. 13275/07 yang dimasukkan oleh Defendan pada 30.8.07 atas Lot T 222 yang dipegang di bawah Hakmilik H.S.(D) 14892 Mukim 12, Daerah Barat Daya, Pulau Pinang ditarik balik;
2. Bahawa Pendaftar Hakmilik Tanah Pulau Pinang diarah untuk mendaftarkan perintah ini;
3. Bahawa Defendan membayar segala gantirugi yang telah dialami oleh Plaintif akibat kaveat tersebut;
4. Bahawa Defendan membayar kos permohonan ini serta segala ‘incidental’ kos. ”
 In the instant case the learned judge had written a 13 page judgment. We do not wish to adumbrate on the said judgment save to say on the facts of the case, the said judgment is not a reasonable view of the evidence on record.
 We have read the appeal record. The appellant had filed a written submission which we have also read. After hearing the learned counsel for the plaintiff and the defendant we take the view that the appeal must be allowed. Our reasons inter alia are as follows:
(i) The defendant alleges by a sale and purchase agreement dated 25-04-2007 the defendant has purchased the property from the plaintiff.
(ii) The plaintiff says that he had not entered into the sale and purchase agreement and had not received any purchase consideration and that he was also in India at the material time.
(iii) It is not in dispute that the plaintiff had not dealt with the defendant at the material time and the person who dealt with the defendant and received the purchase consideration as well as executed the sale and purchase agreement was not the plaintiff.
 The learned judge had failed to take into consideration the salient fact that it was not the plaintiff who entered into the sale and purchase agreement and received the consideration sum. In consequence the appellate intervention is necessary. The appeal is allowed with costs of
RM10,000.00 here and below. The judgment of the High Court is set aside. The deposit to be refunded.
We hereby order so.
Dated: 08 May 2013
(DATUK DR. HJ. HAMID SULTAN BIN ABU BACKER)
Judge High Court Kuala Lumpur
Note: Grounds of judgment subject to correction of error and editorial adjustment etc.
Yagoo Subramaniam Messrs Yagoo & Associates Pulau Pinang.
Hazlan bin Abdul Hamid Messrs. Iszam Kamal & Hazlan Ipoh, Perak.