Suffian LP J:

The United Malayan Banking Co. Ltd (plaintiff in the lower Court and appellant before us) gave an overdraft to a firm, Sharikat Chin Tong (1967). To secure the overdraft, on 27 April 1968 three partners of the firm deposited with the bank documents of title relating to their lands.

The firm did not pay the whole or part of the amount of the overdraft. On 13 April 1970 the bank filed a suit against the firm in the High Court ut Kota Bharu, Civil Suit No. 30 of 1970, out of which this appeal arises. The bank in their statement of claim alleged that the firm was indebted to it in a specified sum. The bank made no mention of any lien.

The firm did not appear. On 18 January 1971 the bank obtained judgment in default against the firm. On 1 January 1972 the bank obtained a writ of seizure and sale and prohibitory orders relating to these lands.

On 22 April 1972 six interveners (the first six respondents before us) applied to set aside the prohibitory orders relating to 14 specified pieces of land. On 17 January 1973 another intervener (seventh respondent before us) made a similar application relating to part of one piece of land which he claimed he had bought together with the third intervener.

The learned Judge granted the interveners' applications and set aside the prohibitory orders. The bank has appealed to us.

The following facts are also not disputed. As already stated, the owners of the lands deposited their titles with the bank on 27 April 1968. As regards two lots, Lots 553 and 578, the owners had previously, on 19 December 1967 agreed to sell them to the interveners and on that day received $5,000 by way of deposit. There was no transaction previous to the date of the deposit as regards the other lots.

As regards all the lots the owners executed agreements of sale agreeing to sell the land to the interveners at various dates in 1970 March that is after the date of the deposit but prior to the date of the prohibitory orders. Prior to the date of the prohibitory orders the interveners paid in full the balance of the purchase price.

It was only subsequently (on 18 January 1971) that the bank entered judgment in default against the firm.

The learned Judge set aside the prohibitory orders on the ground that on the date of these orders the interveners had paid the full purchase price for the lands, that the owners were then only trustees of the land on behalf of the interveners, the owners had no beneficial interest in the lands, they had therefore nothing to be seized by their creditors the bank. The learned Judge followed the decision of this Court in Karuppiah Chettiar v. Subramaniam which decision Counsel for the interveners both in the lower Court and here argued is on all fours with this case.

Let us examine whether or not it is on all fours with this case.

There on 8 November 1968 MS sold all his interest (a share) in a piece of land to Subramaniam. A memorandum of transfer was executed and stamped on the date of the sale, but MS was unable to deliver to Subramaniam the document of title to enable the transfer to be registered, and consequently MS remained registered as proprietor. On 13 November 1968 Subramaniam caveated the land to protect his interest.

It appeared that MS had deposited the issue document of title with a chettiar as security for loans granted to him by the chettiar who apparently had taken no step to lodge a lien-holder's caveat against the land. The chettiar died. On 3 March 1969 MS executed a second memorandum of transfer in respect of the same land in favour of the chettiar's estate, of which Karuppiah was one of the executors. The executors inspected the register document of title and only then did they discover the caveat lodged by Subramaniam.

Karuppiah obtained judgment against MS in a civil suit claiming recovery of money lent. On 22 April 1969 Karuppiah obtained a prohibitory order against MS's interest in the land. The prohibitory order was subsequently entere