JUDGMENT

Storr J:

This was a case in which the plaintiffs claimed by virtue of a Bill of Sale dated 11 May 1952 the possession of premises Nos: 194 and 196 Jalan Bakek, Pontian, Johore, and for an account from the defendant for rents collected by him from 1 June 1952 to 30 September 1953, and to damages for wrongfully withholding possession.

The defendant in his defence stated that the Bill of Sale really formed part of another transaction in which he had received a loan and that there was an Agreement of Loan signed at the same time as the Bill of Sale by which he could repay the consideration in the Bill of Sale, ie $5,850, by three monthly instalments of $1,950 and that the Bill of Sale was given by way of security, and being unregistered was invalid. The defendant stated in evidence that he approached the first plaintiff for a loan of $4,000 at the beginning of April 1952, but that after negotiation the first plaintiff agreed to lend him $3,000 upon his giving him a Bill of Sale for the houses Nos 194 and 196 Jalan Bakek, Pontian, and at the same time it was agreed that the plaintiffs would execute an Agreement by which, if the loan of $3,000 plus interest $900 was repaid in three monthly instalments, the Bill of Sale would be handed back to him. He produced a Bill of Sale and an Agreement of Loan (Exhs D2 and D3). The defendant then stated that at the beginning of May the two plaintiffs approached him and asked if he was going to pay his instalment of $1,300, but he asked them for a further loan, and they agreed to advance him a further loan of $600 on condition he would sign a Bill of Sale for the same two houses for $5,850. This sum was made up of:

Loan on 17 April 1952 ... ... $3,000

Agreed interest for three months ... ... 900

Further loan on 11 May 1952 ... ... 600

$4,500

Three months interest on $4,500 ... ... 1,350

Total $5,850

He stated that at the time of signing the Bill of Sale dated 11 May 1952 the plaintiffs also signed a Loan Agreement similar to Exh. D3 for the repayment of the $5,850 by three monthly instalments, but that the plaintiffs had not produced that Agreement, a copy of which had at no time been given to him. The defendant counterclaimed as follows:

(a) A Declaration that the Bill of Sale dated 11 May 1952 executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintiffs in respect of premises Nos 194 and 196 Jalan Bakek, Pontian Kechil.Johore is null and void.

(b) An order for delivery of the said Bill of Sale by the plaintiffs to the defendant for cancellation.

(e) An order for all necessary rectification of Registers kept in the office of the Town Board, Pontian under s 57 of the Town Board Enactment, 1952 (Johore) relating to entries made therein in respect of premises Nos 194 and 196 Jalan Bakek Pontian Kechil, for the purpose of restoring the name of the defendant as the owner of the two premises.

The defendant's case, therefore, is that the Bill of Sale of 11 May 1952, was in fact part of a loan transaction and was given by way of security and not being registered was invalid.

The plaintiffs in their evidence denied the story of the defendant that the Bill of Sale of 11 May 1952 (Exh P1) formed part of a loan transaction, but stated it was an absolute Bill of Sale and was registered with Notice of Transfer of the houses at the Town Board, Pontian. However, the second plaintiff, who endeavoured throughout his evidence to put the responsibility of the whole transaction on the first plaintiff, admitted that the Bill of Sale of 17 April 1952, was executed at the same time as a Loan Agreement and that those documents (Exhs D2 and D3) were handed over to the petition writer (PW5) Abdul Majid when he prepared the Bill of Sale of 11 May 1952 (Exh P1) on which the plaintiffs relied. Abdul Majid (PW5) stated that he in fact prepared the Bill of Sale (Exh P1) and also a Loan Agreement similar in terms to exh D3, but with the amount of $5,850 in lieu of $3,900. Both plaintiffs in their evidence stated that the amount given to th