Ben- 3/5 – wants to end

proprietorship
(misunderstanding)
Kalai – 1/5
Sara – 1/5
What should be done by Ben to
terminate the co-proprietorship
between them?
 s. 140, s. 141
 Different from subdivision, partition ends
the co-proprietorship between the co-
proprietors.
 s. 140(1) Conditions to apply for
partition:
1. Alienated land under final title
2. Agreement of the co-proprietors
3. Approval of the State Director or Land
Administrator
 Two situations:
1. s. 140(1)(a) – Each of them held under
separate title (the portion of land
proportionate to his undivided share)
2. s. 140(1)(b) – 2/ more continue as co-
proprietors:
- remaining proprietor – each under
separate title (portion of land proportionate
to his undivided share)
- continuing proprietor – remaining of
land under separate title
 s. 140(2)
1. Registry Title – State Director
2. Land Office Title – Land Administrator
 s. 141(1)(a) Conditions for approval for
alienation –
Each co-proprietors has joined in or
consented to the application.
 Ben can terminate his co-proprietorship
by having a separate title after partition
the land under s. 140(1).
 Before that, he has to make sure that his
land is alienated under final title.
Besides, there must be an agreement
between him, Kalai and Sara to the
application. It is on the discretion of the
Land Administrator or State Director to
approve his application.
 Even if Kalai and Sara wanted to continue
their co-proprietorship, Ben can obtain a
separate title for the land as in s.
140(1)(a) and (b) of the NLC.
 In pursuant to s 141(1)(a) of the NLC, he
has to ask Kalai and Sara to join in or
consent to his application for approval to
the partition of land so that the State
Director or Land Administrator may
approve to the said partition.
What should Ben does if Kalai
refuses to give consent to the
application process adopted
by Ben?
 s. 141A
Any co-proprietor may apply for approval to
partition the land if other co-proprietors did not
join in or consent to the making of the
application.
 s. 142(1)
The application shall be made in writing to the
Land Administrator in Form 9B.
 s. 142(1)(e)
By an application under s 141A, the written
consent of the co-proprietor in the making of
application shall be dispensed.
 If there is:
1. Objection [ s. 142(3), s. 142(4)(a) ]: Submit the
objection in writing in 28 days from the date of
service of the notice of the proposed partition.
2. No objection: Approve the application
 s. 145(1)
The court can make an order to terminate the co-
proprietorship if:
1. Any co-proprietor did not join in or consent to
the making of the application for partition
2. Application is incapable of being approved
 SinceKalai refused to give consent to the
application of partition, Ben may apply
approval for the partition of land to the
Land Administrator in a written form in
Form 9B under s. 141A and s. 142(1) of
the NLC. At the time of making such
application, the written consent of Kalai,
who has not joined for the application has
been dispensed under s. 142(1)(e).
 However, Kalai and Sara may objected to
the said approval of application within 28
days from the date of service of notice
notified by the Land Administrator. If the
objection is has been approved, Ben may
seek an order from court to terminate his
co-proprietorship under s. 145(1) of the
NLC.
 Pf directly applied to the court for partition
under s. 145. The Court held that the Pf did not
fulfil the condition in s. 145(1)(a). The court
agrees that it will not usurp the powers and
responsibilities which the Legislature in its
wisdom specifically entrusted to an agency. If
matters before the Land Administrator could not
be resolved, then the matter could be taken up to
the court under s. 145(1)(a) of the NLC, or when
an application to partition land is rejected, the
applicant could appeal to the High Court against
the decision of the State Director under s. 418
NLC.
 Pf’s
reliance on s.145 to terminate the co-
proprietorship is misconceived as there was
no evidence for any request by Pf to Dfs for
partition or any refusal by Dfs to consent to
the partition. Thus the condition under
which the court can exercise its power to
terminate its co-proprietorship under s.
145(1) and to make consequential orders
(including that the said property be sold, s.
145(2) ) have not been satisfied.
 Cher Siew Xuan
 Kabilan