The court concluded that the Defendant, as a bare trustee, is obliged to transfer the property to the Plaintiff who has proven full payment.

[1] The plaintiff company (Plaintiff) and Mr Murugan A/L Singaram (Defendant) entered into a Sale and Purchase Agreement dated 1 June 1999 (SPA) wherein the Defendant sold a piece of land held under title no. PM 8983, Lot 13850, Mukim Dengkil, Sepang District, Selangor (Land) to the Plaintiff at a price of RM100,000.00 (Price).

[2] The Plaintiff claims that the Price has been paid in full to the Defendant and upon the Defendant's request, an additional sum of RM30,000.00 has been given by the Plaintiff to the Defendant.

[3] The Defendant refuses to complete the SPA and transfer title to the Land to the Plaintiff. According to the Defendant, the Defendant has only received a sum of RM30,000.00 from the Plaintiff for the Land.

[4] On 9 April 2008, the Defendant had been adjudged a bankrupt. The Plaintiff subsequently obtained leave from the Bankruptcy Court to institute this suit against the Defendant (This Suit) and claimed for, among others, an order of specific performance of the SPA (SP Order).

B. Issues

[5] The following questions are to be determined in This Suit:

(1) is This Suit time-barred under s 9(1) of the Limitation Act 1953 [ LA (1953)]? In this regard:-

(a) whether the Defendant is estopped from raising a limitation defence when the Defendant has agreed with the Plaintiff that the sole issue to be decided in This Suit is whether the Plaintiff has paid the Price in full to the Defendant; and

(b) does s 22(1)(b) LA (1953) apply in this case when the Plaintiff relies on the equitable doctrine of bare trust (Bare Trust Doctrine) to support This Suit?;

(2) did the Plaintiff pay RM130,000.00 or RM30,000.00 to the Defendant for the purchase of the Land?;

(3) whether the Court should exercise its discretion under s 114(g) of the Evidence Act 1950 ( EA ) to draw an adverse inference against:-

(a) the Plaintiff for not adducing, among others, the Defendant's acknowledgement of receipt of the Price in full from the Plaintiff; and

(b) the Defendant for suppressing from this Court and the Plaintiff the fact that the Defendant had applied to the Land Administrator ( LA ) and had obtained a "title in continuation" for the Land (Replacement IDT);

(4) did the Defendant obtain the Replacement IDT in compliance with s 166(1)(a) to (j) of the National Land Code ( NLC )?; and

(5) whether the Court should exercise its discretionary power to:-

(a) grant a SP Order pursuant to s 11(1)(c) of the Specific Relief Act 1950 ( SRA ) when the Plaintiff relies on the Bare Trust Doctrine;

(b) order an assessment of compensation to be paid by the Defendant to the Plaintiff in addition to the SP Order as provided in s 18(1), (3) and (4) SRA ;

(c) issue a mandatory injunction under s 53 SRA to compel the Defendant to surrender the Replacement IDT to the LA ; and

(d) order the LA to cancel the Replacement IDT under s 417(1) NLC .

C. Plaintiff's Case

[6] The Plaintiff called the following three witnesses to give evidence in support of This Suit:

(1) Mr Lim Piak Chai (SP1), a director of the Plaintiff;

(2) Mr Lim Kwee (SP2), the Plaintiff's director and SP1's brother; and

(3) Mr Ling Ai Hong (SP3), an Advocate and Solicitor who practises law in Messrs Seah, Balan Ravi & Co. (Messrs SBR).

[7] SP1 testified as follows, among others:

(1) SP1 witnessed the signing of the SPA on 1 June 1999 by SP2 and Mr Lim Boon Hin (LBH). SP2 and LBH signed the SPA on behalf of the Plaintiff. LBH is a director of the Plaintiff and a brother of SP1 and SP2;

(2) the signing of the SPA on 1 June 1999 by the Defendant was witnessed by SP1, SP2, SP3 and LBH;

(3) after the SPA had been signed:-

(a) the Price in full was handed over in cash to the Defendant by SP2 and LBH (on behalf of the Plaintiff) in the presence of SP1 and SP3. The Defendant signed a payment voucher which acknowledged that the Defendant had received the Price in full (PV). The PV was