Chao Hick Tin J:

This is an application by the plaintiff under s. 111(1) of the Land Title Act to remove two caveats lodged by the defendant.

After hearing submissions of the parties on 28 November 1991, I decided to remove both the caveats on the ground that they are not in compliance with the requirements of s. 104 of the Act and the form prescribed there under. The defendant has appealed against the order and I now give my reasons.

On 8 June 1990, the plaintiff, Rafiq Jumabhoy, through his attorney, granted an option to one Ms. Ho Poh Lin to purchase the plaintiffs property at 36, Ewe Boon Road, Singapore. To exercise the option the grantee was required to sign the acceptance copy of the option and deliver the same with the requisite payment to the grantor's solicitors on or before 4 pm on 8 August 1990. Clause 13 of the option gave the grantee "the right to nominate another party who is either a Singapore citizen or a Singapore company ... to execute this option provided that (the grantee) sign(s) and return(s) the nomination form attached to this option.

For reasons which I need not go into at this time (as they are not relevant), on 6 August 1990 Jumabhoy instructed his solicitors to revoke the option. The notice of revocation was communicated to the solicitors for Ms. Ho Poh Lin.

On 7 August 1990 the acceptance copy of the option and the nomination form, duly completed, were delivered together with the appropriate payment to the solicitors of the grantor (Jumabhoy). By the nomination form Ms. Ho Poh Lin nominated Alrich Development Pte. Ltd., the defendant herein, to execute the option. The acceptance copy of the option was duly signed by Alrich Development. Both the nomination form and the acceptance were dated 6 August 1990.

Also on 7 August 1990 Alrich Development lodged a caveat (hereinafter called "the first caveat") against the property wherein the following was stated:

Estate or interest : claims interest as

claimed purchaser

Grounds of Claim : By virtue of an option dated

6 August 1990 given by the

registered proprietor to the

caveator and was exercised

by the caveator on even date

in respect of purchase of

the land above described,

as to the estate or interest of

the registered proprietor.

Correspondence ensued between the solicitors of the parties as to whether Jumabhoy was entitled to revoke the option and whether a binding contract was brought into being on 7 August 1990 when the nomination form and the acceptance copy of the option were delivered to Jumabhoy's solicitors. This dispute is now the subject matter of a suit (No. 1452/1990) instituted by Alrich Development against Jumabhoy wherein Alrich Development claims for specific performance and damages for breach of contract in lieu of or in addition to specific performance. That suit is pending.

One year later, on 6 August 1991 Alrich Development lodged another caveat (the second caveat) against the same property, the relevant portion of which reads as follows:

Estate or Interest: : Claims interest as purchaser

claim

By virtue of an option dated

Grounds of Claims : 8 June 1990 given by the

registered proprietor and

duly exercised by the

caveator on 6 August 1990

as to the estate or interest of

the registered proprietor.

The caveat prohibits the registration of any instrument affecting the property unless the caveator consents.

Jumabhoy contended before me that both the first and the second caveats were defective and should be removed. In so far as the first caveat was concerned it was clear to my mind that it was defective. The option was not given on 6 August 1990 it was 6 June 1990. It was not granted to the caveator but to one Ms Ho Poh Lin. The option was not exercised on 6 August 1990 but on 7 August 1990. Counsel for Alrich Development had not seriously tried to argue that the first caveat was not defective. The fact that Alrich Development lodged the second caveat would suggest that it realized that the first caveat was probably not in or