Hashim Yeop Sani J:

The first appellant (M. Ratnavale nee Annalakshmi d/o Vattivelu) and the respondent had known each other since 1956. On 13 March 1967 the first appellant became the registered proprietor of land known as Lot 9987 held under Grant No. 15434 in the Mukim of Batu, Lorong Kenny Bahagia in Kuala Lumpur ("the land"). On 2 November 1967 the first appellant created a charge over the land in favour of one K. Sinnathamby, since deceased. The second appellant (Dr. M. Mahadevan s/o Mahalingam) was the brother-in-law of the first appellant. The first appellant's husband passed away on 9 April 1973. The second appellant became one of the executors of the estate of the first appellant's husband some time in September 1973.

The respondent, as plaintiff in the Court below, alleged conspiracy to defraud against both the first and second appellants. Paragraph 13 of the reamended statement of claim sets out the particulars of the alleged fraud:

13(a) Knowing that there was a written agreement for sale of the said land to the plaintiff and knowing that the issue document of title had been delivered to and was in the possession of the plaintiff's solicitors for the purpose of obtaining for the first defendant an extension of the time limited by the special conditions of title within which a building must be erected on the said land the first and second defendants with intent to defraud the plaintiff falsely and fraudulently represented to the Registrar of Titles Wilayah Persekutuan that the issue document of title to the said land had been lost and thereby induced the said Registrar to issue a document of title in continuation in respect of the said land being Grant No. 17;

(b) Knowing that a firm of solicitors was acting for the representatives of the estate of the deceased chargee of the said land one Sinnathamby and knowing that the representatives of the estate could be contacted through the said solicitors and that the charge could be discharged through the said solicitors, the first and second defendants with intend to defraud the plaintiff falsely and fraudulently represented to the Registrar of Titles Wilayah Persekutuan that the representatives of the estate of the chargee could not be located and thereby induced the said Registrar to cancel the memorial relating to the said charge on the Registry document of title to the said land and to discharge the charge on 5 December 1973;

(c) Knowing that there was a written agreement for sale of the said land to the plaintiff and knowing that the issue of document of title had been delivered to and was in the possession of the plaintiff's solicitors for the purpose of obtaining for the first defendant in extension of the time limited by the special conditions of title within which a building must be erected on the said land the first and second defendants with intent to defraud the plaintiff induced the Registrar to Titles to dispense with the production of the issue document of title to the said land and induced him to register a transfer of the said land from the first defendant to the second defendant on 13 March 1974 by falsely and fraudulently representing to the said Registrar that the issue document of title to the said land had been lost;

(d) knowing that there was a written agreement for sale of the said land to the plaintiff which was to be completed within 14 days of the Ruler in Council granting an extension of the time within which a building must be erected on the said land, the first and second defendants with intend to defraud the plaintiff executed and completed registration of a transfer of the said land from the first defendant to the second defendant on the same day as the first defendant was informed that the Ruler in Council had granted the extension.

Briefly the relevant background facts are as follows. On 14 July 1972 the first appellant and the respondent through their respective solicitors negotiated for the sale and purchase of the land and e