JUDGMENTBY: MOHAMED AZMI SCJ

(delivering the Judgment of the Court): This is an appeal against the decision of the High Court at Kuala Lumpur wherein the appellants 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 paragraph 4 of the Statement of Claim and admitted by paragraph 1 of the Amended Defence, the purchaser (appellant/plaintiff) alleged that, "on December 16, 1971 the defendant (respondent/vendor) acting by one Lim Tan orally agreed with the plaintiff at the defendants 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." It was also pleaded by the purchaser that the price of the property was $ 28,000/- but being a corner lot there was extra land measuring 22 [] x 70 [] for which he had to pay an additional $ 2,000/-, thus making a total sum of $ 30,000/- as consideration for the contract of sale. The vendor denied the claim on extra land. Whilst admitting the purchase price to be $ 30,000/-, the vendor averred that the price included a sum of $ 1,500/- 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 $ 5,928/- (which included $ 120/- for water deposit) despite repeated written demands by the vendor. From Exhibit AB8 at page 210 of Appeal Record, it was not disputed that the total sum demanded by the vendor was $ 30,120/- and out of this the purchaser had paid to the vendor$ 24,192/- -- the last payment of $ 19,192/- being paid on January 25, 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 $ 20,000/- 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 March 21, 1974 (AB13) the vendor took the stand that the agreement had been repudiated on the ground of the purchasers refusal to settle the balance sum of $ 5,928/- 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 paragraph 15 of the Amended Defence, the vendor also averred that the purchase was based on oral agreement and therefore void by reason of Rule 12(1) of the Housing Developers 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 paragraphs (a) to (u) of the sub-rule.

On issues of fact the learned trial Judge mainly found for the vendor. On the extra land dispute, he rejected the purchasers 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 vendors version that the

Click Here to Read the rest of this document