Ong CJ:

(Malaya) This is an exceptional and difficult case in which my brethren have reached different conclusions. It behoves me, therefore, to state fully my reasons for preferring one to the other.

All the relevant facts have been set out in the other judgments, thus sparing me the task of repeating them here. I need therefore only refer briefly to such facts as I consider material to my decision.

In Civil SuitNo. 120/58 the plaintiff, Haji Ahmad, sued for specific performance of what Hill J described as a typical jual janji agreement. He pleaded the contract, full payment of the agreed price and his being given possession of the lands and titles thereto upon making such payment. The relief claimed by him from the defendant (who is the present respondent) was simply the execution of a transfer of the lands in his favour.

By her defence, the respondent traversed all allegations of fact set out in the statement of claim, except as to Haji Ahmad being in possession of the lands as purchaser. His possession, she alleged, was by virtue of a lease given to Haji Ahmad by her late husband. This, of course, made the question of title an issue clearly falling to be decided in