In this case, the Court held that the Development Corporation was not permitted to sell a parking bay independently of an apartment.
Facts of the Case
Plaintiff purchased two apartments identified as apartment No.10B-4 (5-10A) and apartment No.9D-4 (5-9A) from the Realty Development Corporation of Malaysia Sdn Bhd on 26 October 1979. On 23 March 1982, the plaintiff purported to purchase parking bay L. 17 from the Development Corporation. The parking bay were marked with the figures “5-10A”. On 12 September 1983, the plaintiff sold the apartment No.10B-4 (5-10A) to the defendant by way of a deed of assignment. Plaintiff had a letter dated 4 May 1984 from the Development Corporation confirmed that the plaintiff had purchased the parking bay separately from the two apartments.
The plaintiff contended that she sold the apartment to the defendant but not the parking bay. Defendant denied this and claimed that the plaintiff’s agent had indicated to him prior the sale that the parking bay “belonged to the said apartment” he intended to purchase. The plaintiff made an application to the Court for an injunction to restrain the defendant and his agents from dealing with or using the parking bay in a condominium pending the disposal of the suit.
Issue of the Case
Whether the Development Corporation was in law permitted to sell a parking bay independently of an apartment?
Judgment of the Case
Counsel for the defendant contended that the parking bay formed part of common property and therefore could not be sold as a separate entity. On the other hand, counsel for the plaintiff admitted that the parking bay was an accessory parcel but they contended that a sale and purchase agreement by its very nature conferred a right to the Development Corporation to sell the parking bay. The Court disagreed with the plaintiff’s argument due to the specific provisions of section 42 (this section has been deleted by Act A1450 in 2015) and section 69 of the Strata Titles Act 1985.
Section 69 of the Strata Titles Act 1985 states:
“No dealing in accessory parcel independent of a parcel
69. No accessory parcel or any share or interests therein shall be dealt with independently of the parcel to which such accessory parcel has been made appurtenant as shown on the approved strata plan.”
The Court also held that on a balance of convenience, the status quo should remain until the trial of the suit for the following reasons. First, the photograph exhibited by the defendant showed that the parking bay was reserved for apartment No.10B-4 (5-10A). secondly, the document from the Development Corporation showed that the plaintiff who retained apartment No.9D-4 (5-9A) was a “non-purchaser” of any parking bay in relation to that apartment. Thirdly, the plaintiff admitted that the defendant had after execution of the deed of assignment been using parking bay L.17 in bona fide belief that the parking bay was belonging to his apartment.
Hence, the application was dismissed by the Court.
Comments