ORMORM Manickavasagam Chetty v TJ McGregor  MLJ 295 Facts:
Application by one of the two joint-owners for removal of caveat. One of the co-owner of the land deposit the title with R to secure a loan. Before the deposit of title with R by the said co-owner, the co-owners of the land agreed to subdivide the land and later on to execute a cross-transfer. Collector of Land Revenue asked R to deliver to him the title of the IDT so that he can sub-divide the land. R did so. R later enforced the lien -- by lodging a caveat over the undivided half-interest of the said co-owner in the land. The caveat was registered with the Registrar of Titles. A claimed that the lien had been lost when R departed with the title. He wants R to withdraw his caveat so that cross-transfer can be executed. (Because there was caveat, registration of transfer was refused.) Held:
S 134 of the Land Code:
When a lien is intended to be created over any land the proprietor may deposit his grant, lease of State land, certificate of title, or extract from the mukim register, and the person with whom the same has been deposited may present a caveat. Upon registration of such caveat the lien shall be created. IDT must be deposited to the person who wished to enter into a lien-holder’s caveat Lien is not created upon deposit of title as it was before (S 80 of Registration of Titles Enactment) but only upon registration of the caveat. Lien may not be lost where possession is no longer retained. The test whether a lien is in existence is whether there is a caveat on the land or not. (not whether the title is still in the possession of the lien-holder. Not having the title in possession does not mean that the lien ceased to exist or the lien-holder had intended to give up the lien. Caveat was still in force. Respondent was no longer in possession of the part of the title for the land over which the lien was created is not evidence that the lien has ceased to exist. He cannot withdraw the...
Please join StudyMode to read the full document