Court held that it was clear from the a foregoing that the caveator had attempted three times to inform the court about her claim of being customarily married to the late Lee Singh Chiang, but to no avail. The issue of marriage came during the time the late Lee Singh Chiang was alive and breathing. The caveator did not adduce any evidence of customary marriage.
In view of the status quo it was wrong for the Respondent to refuse to vacate the caveat. Therefore Section 140 (2) of the RTA does not apply.
In the same vein, Section 38 and 39 of the Land Act does not apply because it was not proved that the property was a family property. For the above reasons, court found that the Applicants right in the suit property were being affected by the said caveat which could not be allowed to stand. The Respondent being responsible for vacating the caveat had clearly abdicated herself of her roles and duties relying on the customary marriage certificate whose impact have already been discussed above.
The application was accordingly granted.