Cheras temples lose eviction fight, deemed squatters

KUALA LUMPUR: Two long-standing Chinese temples have failed in their bid to remain on a disputed piece of land in Cheras after the High Court dismissed their suit, calling it a futile attempt to evade an earlier ruling that had declared them squatters.

Judge Roz Mawar Rozain made the ruling after allowing developer Evermark Realty Sdn Bhd’s application to strike out the lawsuit filed by Penganut Dewa Liu San Qian Tian Cheras and Persatuan Penganut Wong Siong Tong, Jalan Peel (the plaintiffs).

The dispute involves a 12,064-square-metre parcel of land in Cheras owned by Evermark Realty, which became the registered proprietor on July 13, 2023.

The two temple associations claimed they had occupied the site since 2019 with the consent of the previous landowner and had built two temples there.

They argued that their occupation was based on a “licence coupled with equity” allegedly granted by the former proprietor, which allowed them to remain and operate their places of worship.

In October last year, Evermark filed eviction proceedings under Order 89 of the Rules of Court 2012, naming the temple groups as unlawful occupiers.

On April 10 this year, High Court judge Datuk Raja Ahmad Mohzanuddin Shah Raja Mohzan ruled in favour of the developer, declaring the plaintiffs squatters and affirming Evermark’s right to repossess the land.

Despite that, the associations filed a fresh writ action just weeks before the earlier judgment was delivered, seeking a declaration that they were licensees coupled with equity, an order for Evermark to relocate and rebuild the temples at Jalan Quarry, and injunctions to restrain the company from entering or demolishing them.

The developer, however, argued that the temples were unlawful occupants, saying the claim was barred by res judicata and was a frivolous, vexatious and abusive attempt to relitigate settled issues.

In her judgment dated Oct 16, Roz Mawar said the temples’ claim had no reasonable cause of action, as they had already been declared squatters in the earlier eviction case.

She said the attempt to distinguish their new claim from the previous proceedings was “a distinction of form over substance”, as both suits revolved around the same issue.

The judge also noted the timing of the new action, which was filed just weeks before judgment in the eviction case, suggesting an effort to “create parallel proceedings and circumvent an impending adverse judgment”.

“To permit the plaintiffs to proceed with this claim would not only undermine the finality of the earlier judgment but also encourage parties to fragment their disputes and pursue multiple proceedings in an attempt to obtain a more favourable outcome.

“This court finds that the present claim is frivolous and vexatious,” she said.

Roz Mawar further warned that such actions undermine the finality of court decisions, emphasising that “all litigation must come to an end”.

“To allow these issues to be relitigated would defeat the fundamental principle of finality enshrined in the doctrine of res judicata,” she added.

The court awarded RM10,000 in costs to the defendant.

The plaintiffs have since filed an appeal with the Court of Appeal.

Lawyers Reeve Lim Chun Loong and Nga Ching Sim represented the plaintiffs, while Alfred Gan Jui Siang appeared for the defendant.

© New Straits Times Press (M) Bhd

Source link