(delivering the judgment of the court): The first appellant (M. Ratnavale nee Annalakshmi d/o Vattivelu) and the respondent had known each other since 1956. On 13 March 1967, the first appellant became the registered proprietor of land known as Lot 9987 held under Grant No. 15434 in the Mukim of Batu, Lorong Kenny Bahagia in Kuala Lumpur ("the land"). On 2 November 1967, the first appellant created a charge over the land in favour of one K. Sinnathamby, since deceased. The second appellant (Dr. M. Mahadevan s/o Mahalingam) was the brother-in-law of the first appellant. The first appellants husband passed away on 9 April 1973. The second appellant became one of the executors of the estate of the first appellants husband some time in September 1973.

The respondent, as plaintiff in the court below, alleged conspiracy to defraud against both the first and second appellants. Paragraph 13 of the re-amended statement of claim sets out the particulars of the alleged fraud:

"13. (a) knowing that there was a written agreement for sale of the

said land to the plaintiff and knowing that the issue document of

title had been delivered to and was in the possession of the

plaintiffs solicitors for the purpose of obtaining for the first

defendant an extension of the time limited by the special

conditions of title within which a building must be erected on

the said land, the first and second defendants, with intent to

defraud the plaintiff, falsely and fraudulently represented to

the Registrar of Titles Wilayah Persekutuan that the issue

document of title to the said land had been lost and thereby

induced the said Registrar to issue a document of title in

continuation in respect of the said land being Grant No. 17;

(b) knowing that a firm of solicitors was acting for the

representatives of the estate of the deceased chargee of the said

land, one Sinnathamby, and knowing that the representatives of

the estate could be contacted through the said solicitors and

that the charge could be discharged through the said solicitors,

the first and second defendants, with intend to defraud the

plaintiff, falsely and fraudulently represented to the Registrar

of Titles Wilayah Persekutuan that the representatives of the

estate of the chargee could not be located and thereby induced

the said Registrar to cancel the memorial relating to the said

charge on the Registry document of title to the said land and to

discharge the charge on 5 December 1973;

(c) knowing that there was a written agreement for sale of the said

land to the plaintiff and knowing that the issue of document of

title had been delivered to and was in the possession of the

plaintiffs solicitors for the purpose of obtaining for the first

defendant an extension of the time limited by the special

conditions of title within which a building must be erected on

the said land, the first and second defendants, with intent to

defraud the plaintiff, induced the Registrar of Titles to

dispense with the production of the issue document of title to

the said land and induced him to register a transfer of the said

land from the first defendant to the second defendant on 13 March

1974 by falsely and fraudulently representing to the said

Registrar that the issue document of title to the said land had

been lost;

(d) knowing that there was a written agreement for sale of the said

land to the plaintiff which was to be completed within 14 days of

the Ruler-in-Council granting an extension of the time within