drated: Wed DEC 9, 2015
PENAMPANG. A man from Kg. Tanaki here, submitted five
main reasons for not accepting the results of a mediation held in chamber of a
Native Chief on 29 Sept 2015.
Testifying as plaintiff, he said the land under dispute
was transferred to him by his wife who had inherited it from her mother, who
also had inherited it from her own mother (plaintiff’s grandmother in-law).
He admitted that the land is therefore an inherited land
or “tanah pusaka” in native terminology.
When he constructed their house on the land, his wife had
transferred ownership to him in order to get a loan from Suruhanjaya Perumahan
Persekutuan Malaysia.
He also claimed that his mother in-law was still alive when
the land was transferred to his wife in 1991 and together with the Memorandum
of Transfer form, a no objection letter signed by all the siblings of his wife
was submitted to the land office. However this letter was not witnessed by
anybody and one of the siblings who was staying in Kuala Lumpur was not
included. The plaintiff claimed she too had confirmed not objecting via
telephone only.
When the court ask if he has the original copy of this
letter, he answered it was lost when the house got flooded in the past.
Hence he claimed that the transfer including the letter
of no objection is valid. His wife was willing to transfer the land to him in
order to build a house on the basis of “love and affection” as written by the
Land Office.
As the loan is paid, he intended to transfer back the
land to his wife but only after the case in this court is settled. He contended
that the defendant has no more right to claim the land as it is now own by his
wife and not the mother in-law.
He concluded that all the relatives of his wife have no
more rights to the land and asked the court for an eviction order to all those
who are still staying on the land.
However the court told him the case before them is only about
why he is objecting to the results of the mediation and not about eviction
order.
Responding to a question from the bench whether there is
relevance between “eviction” and “love and affection” he responded that he had
allowed them to stay at the existing family home on the land but since they are
not happy with the current arrangement so love and affection ceased to exist.
When told that he got the land via love and affection and
but he is returning the favour with “eviction”, he declined to answer.
In response, the defendant who is also the sister in-law
of the plaintiff said she is laying claim to the family home and a part of the
land because it is the inherited property of her mother and she has no other
place to stay. She claimed she had looked after her mother until the end and
she had proposed and issued a will including her as beneficiary.
She claimed her mother agreed the land title can be
borrowed for the purpose of her elder sister and husband to build a house and
that part of the land will belong to them. She also said her sister had asked
her for assistance for their mother’s approval for them to build the new house.
In conclusion she maintains every statement she had made
during the mediation held on 9 Sept 2015 as still valid and true.
After she finished her testimony, her younger brother
sitting at the gallery asked the court for permission to query as his name has
been mentioned by the plaintiff as having agreed to the transfer of the land,
claiming he has no knowledge of the letter.
However, the bench comprising District Chief Bryan
Matasing, Native Chief Andrew S. Lidaun and Village Chief Rita John said they
will look into this matter in the next hearing on 19 January 2016.
No comments:
Post a Comment