[2] The appellant and the first respondent were partners in the business of a restaurant. Sometime in 1992, they decided to acquire the building in which the restaurant had its business. Each of them was to contribute towards the purchase price. In the courts below, the appellant said that she had provided a sum of RM214,610 as her contribution towards the price. That figure was however corrected before us to RM194,610. But the courts below did not accept that this payment had been made. They found for the far lesser sum of RM65,450. They also held that s 433B of the National Land Code 1965 ("the Code") barred the appellant from enforcing any trust that may have arisen in her favour by reason of her contribution towards the purchase price. We will address these matters later in this judgment. It is the appellant's case that there was an agreement or more appropriately, a mutual understanding, between her and the first respondent that the building, when acquired, was to be purchased and registered in the joint names of herself and the first respondent in equal shares. That did not happen. What however did happen was that the first respondent purchased the property in question on 6 March 1992, for a sum of RM950,000 and had it registered in her sole name. Part of the purchase price had been raised by way of a loan from Perdana Finance Berhad. In mid-1996 the first respondent sold the property to the second respondent company for a sum of RM1,930,000 part of which was raised by way of a loan from Malayan Banking Berhad. In the meantime, the appellant lodged a caveat to protect her interest in the property. She then instituted proceedings to enforce the trust she claimed had arisen in her favour. Proceedings were also commenced by the first respondent for the removal of the appellant's caveat. Both actions were tried together by the High Court which found against the appellant. It dismissed the appellant's action and directed the removal of her caveat. It also ordered the first respondent to refund the sum of RM65,450 with interest to the appellant. The appellant appealed to the Court of Appeal which affirmed the High Court's orders.

[3] Four main points arise in this appeal. First, whether the High Court's evaluation of the appellant's evidence was correct, in particular as to the amount of her contribution to the purchase price. Second, what rights, if any did the appellant acquire under the terms of the mutual understanding between her and the first respondent? Third, whether the appellant may enforce her rights, if any, against the second respondent. And fourth, whether s 433B of the Code applies to the instant case. Taking the first issue, it is significant that in the present instance the first respondent did not attend Court nor give evidence nor take any part in the case. All she did was merely to put forward arguments on why the appellant's caveat ought to be removed. She could have, if she wished, given evidence and challenged the appellant's evidence. But as already noted she refrained from doing that. On the facts of this case, there were two persons who were privy to the terms of the arrangement in question and the details of the payments made and the purpose for which they were made: the appellant and the first respondent. The appellant took the witness stand and gave her evidence o