draft: Mon 31 Oct 2016
PENAMPANG. The struggle by a retiree to get back the
family home sold by a sister without permission from the rest of the family,
entered a second phase after the Native Court here had settled the case in
August this year.
Previously, the Native Court had found the house as
heritage of their parents where all the siblings have equal rights. However the
land lot belongs to the government as it lies within a village reserve where
the trustees are the Village Chief, District Chief and District Officer.
The court had ordered the house to be returned by the
buyer to the family where the purchase price of RM58,000 will be refunded,
RM30,000 to be paid by the sister who sold it and the rest to be paid by the
other siblings.
The buyer is not staying in the house but renting it out
to foreigners after carrying out minor repairs.
He had refused to comply with the court’s order and was
summoned to a hearing in chamber but refused to accept the refund claiming he
had already spent a lot on repairs.
Testifying in the dock as plaintiff, the retiree said he
is ready with the full refund as per the chamber hearing. He said it was not
fair to him to pay any additional amount because the buyer had been renting the
house for RM700 per month and was repeatedly told by himself and the village
chief not to carry out any works on the house when it was under dispute in
court. He also claimed the buyer as defendant continued to modify the house
despite being ordered to stop by the court during the chamber hearings.
The plaintiff concluded by asking the court to order the
defendant to vacate the house and be locked with the keys surrendered to the
court and all utility bills paid in full. He said if the defendant disagreed he
will still continue to claim his rights on the house.
At this time a member of the gallery interrupted and
requested to say something but was strongly admonished and warned by the bench
that no one else is allowed to speak except the parties to the case, otherwise he
would be thrown out of the courtroom.
In his defence the buyer said he is still representing
his wife who actually signed the purchase agreement of the house as was the
case in chambers. He claimed the house is legally his having bought it from the
previous owner and claims no other people owned the house. As he had spent lots
on repairs he would not accept just the original purchase price.
When asked by the court if he knows that government land
cannot be bought or sold, he kept silent.
He instead submitted a bunch of his repair bills
amounting to RM12,000.
Upon examining the bills on the spot, the bench told the
defendant that the previous case was settled in August and court staff together
with their own valuation expert had inspected the house and defendant told to
return the house to the previous owner. The bench said all the bills submitted
are dated in September. The defendant was then told that without the approval
of the trustees, the sale of the house and land is not valid as it was against
the law. However the defendant maintained his stand of not accepting the refund
of RM58,000.
The plaintiff was then recalled and asked if he accepted
the court’s valuation of repair works done up to August when the inspection was
made with an amount of RM1280 only. After requesting for consultation with
members of his family, he told the court he is willing to pay the extra amount.
After the plaintiff has signed his amended statement, the
court announced a 20 minute break for the panel to discuss their verdict.
The judges comprising District Chief Bryan Matasing,
Native Chief Andrew S Lidaun and Village Chief Jeffry Lajanty then came back to
the court to announce their verdict:
1. The Native Court does not recognise the sale and
purchase of the house without the approval of the trustees
2. The Court still give consideration by ordering
the return of the purchase price to the buyer
3. The Courts evaluation of repair work done upon
site inspection including fences, gate and roof amounted to RM1,280.
4. The plaintiff will now refund RM59,280 within 14
days of the verdict and the buyer has also 14 days to accept.
5. The house must be vacated within 14 days, locked
and the keys surrendered to the court via the village chief.
6. Any party not satisfied with the verdict has 60
days to appeal to the District Native Court
In closing the case, Matasing told the parties that
although the court does not recognise the sale of the house, they are still
sympathetic and tried to correct the mistakes by ordering the refund.
He advised both parties be calm and reconsider their
follow up action to ensure the matter is settled.
No comments:
Post a Comment