Mohd Azmi FJ:

[1] This is an appeal against the decision of the High Court at Kuala Lumpur wherein the appellant's claim for specific performance, damages and other ancillary reliefs in respect of a contract of sale of a double-storey terrace building at Rawang was dismissed with costs. By para 4 of the Statement of Claim and admitted by para 1 of the Amended Defence, the purchaser (appellant/plaintiff) alleged that:

On 16 December 1971 the defendant (respondent/vendor) acting by one Lim Tan orally agreed with the plaintiff at the defendant's office at No 54, Jalan Maxwell, Rawang, that the defendant would sell and transfer to the plaintiff lot No 3227/67, Main Road, Green Park, Rawang, together with a double-storey terrace building which the defendant undertook to build on it. The said lot is a corner lot and the said building would be the building at one end of a row of more than four buildings. The said building is housing accommodation under Housing Developers (Control and Licensing) Act 1966 and the said lot No 3227/67 is land under Housing Developers (Control and Licensing) Rules 1970.

[2] It was also pleaded by the purchaser that the price of the property was RM28,000 but being a corner lot there was extra land measuring 22' x 70' for which he had to pay an additional RM2,000, thus making a total sum of RM30,000 as consideration for the contract of sale. The vendor denied the claim on extra land. Whilst admitting the purchase price to be RM30,000, the vendor averred that the price included a sum of RM1,500 being the cost of extra work on a balcony and not the cost of extra land. On the evidence, it would appear that the extra land dispute was the main reason for the purchaser refusing to pay the vendor the final balance of RM5,928 (which included RM120 for water deposit) despite repeated written demands by the vendor. From Exhibit AB8 at p 210 of Appeal Record, it was not disputed that the total sum demanded by the vendor was RM30,120 and out of this the purchaser had paid to the vendor RM24,192 - the last payment of RM19,192 being paid on 25 January 1973 through the Government Housing Loan Division of the Treasury. Being an officer in the Immigration Department at the material time, the purchaser was eligible for a housing loan, and when the sale agreement was entered into it was understood that a loan of RM20,000 would be sought from the Government towards the purchase of the property. As is normal in such a loan application, the vendor furnished the purchaser with the necessary supporting documents required by the Housing Loan Department to establish the purchase. In the present case there was conflicting evidence as to what documents were in fact furnished by the vendor to the purchaser, but the dispute on documents was more for the purpose of determining by documentary evidence the extra land issue. To cut the story short, by letter dated 21 March 1974 (AB13) the vendor took the stand that the agreement had been repudiated on the ground of the purchaser's refusal to settle the balance sum of RM5,928 towards the purchase price after a reasonable time had been given. The repudiation is challenged by the purchaser on the basis that it was invalid by virtue of the Housing Developers legislation. By para 15 of the amended defence, the vendor also averred that the purchase was based on oral agreement and therefore void by reason of r 12(1) of the Housing Developers (Control and Licensing) Rules 1970 which provides that every contract of sale "shall be in writing" and shall contain within its terms and conditions provisions as provided in para (a) to (u) of the sub-rule.

[3] On issues of fact the learned trial Judge mainly found for the vendor. On the extra land dispute, he rejected the purchaser's claim and came to the conclusion that the area of the land sold was 1,834 sq ft and not 3,080 sq ft and he accepted the vendor's version that the purchase price was RM30,000 comprising RM28,500, the original cost of the pro