SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1971 MarsdenLR 258

AZMI, GILL, SUFFIAN
ONG CHAT PANG – Appellant
Versus
VALLIAPPA CHETTIAR – Respondent


Advocates:
For the appellants - NA Majoribanks; Lovelace & Hastings For the respondents - P Mooney; Skrine & Co.

JUDGMENT

Suffian FJ:

The plaintiff (respondent) is a moneylender in Klang. The first and second defendants were partners in a firm, Universal Car Agency at 22 Rembau Street, Klang. (They are not concerned with this appeal.) The third defendant is a housewife and the fourth defendant is an associate in a firm, Tai Wah & Co. at 13, Batu Tiga Road, Klang. (They are the appellants in this appeal.)

On 2 November 1957 the plaintiff entered into a written agreement with the first and second defendants to purchase for $30,000 the land in question upon which a house was being constructed (held under Selangor Grant for Land No. 13107 for Lot 404, s. 24 in the Town of Klang). The land was subject to a charge of $15,000 in favour of the Malaya Borneo Building Society. The plaintiff paid the first and second defendants $15,000 towards the purchase price. In January 1958 on hearing that the first and second defendants were in financial difficulties the plaintiff went to look for them in their shop but in vain, though he called there twice a day from 13 to 17 January.

After the 18th he noticed that the stock-in-trade in the shop was diminishing. The plaintiff then went to Kuala Lumpur to see th

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top