Howes J:

This is an appeal by way of petition against the decision of the Collector of Land Revenue, Parit, by which he ordered:

Entry Mukim Register No. 1505 Mukim of Laiang Laiang to be registered in the name of Munah binti Dahu.

The petition was headed "Petition under s. 237(iii) of the Land Code, 1926," and an objection was taken by Counsel for the respondent that as the matter was dealt with by the Collector under s. 107 the proper course was by way of appeal under s. 107 (xii).

Section 107(xii) however merely says: "From any order under this section..... an appeal shall lie to the Court." It does not "specifically prescribe" any other form of appeal, and consequently, it appears to me that appeals under s. 107(xii) are to be governed by s. 237, which is the section dealing with appeals under the Land Code, generally. The period during which a dissatisfied person may appeal under both sections is the same, viz. 30 days. I therefore see no substance in the objection.

The grounds of appeal shortly are:

(a) The Collector had no jurisdiction to entertain the application of the respondent.

(b) Even if he had jurisdiction he had no power to sit as a Court and set aside transfers on the ground of undue influence or breach of conditions, as such can only be exercised by a Court competent to enforce the provisions of the Contract Act and

Specific Relief Act.

(c) The Collector was wrong in admitting oral evidence to depart from the terms as laid down in the transfer.

Two transfers were made by the respondent (who is the wife of the appellant) to the appellant and in each case the consideration was stated to be "love and affection towards my husband." The transfers contain the usual certificate by the Assistant Collector of Land Revenue, Parit, that the transferor was of full age, and had voluntarily executed the instrument.

The husband (the appellant) was accordingly registered as the owner of both plots. No caveat was lodged, nor was there any indication of any trust. Subsequently, the husband sold one of the plots (EMR 759) and consequently the Collector made no order as to this plot.

The respondent at the inquiry before the Collector under s. 107, gave evidence that she only transferred the lands to her husband subject to certain verbal conditions, viz:

(a) The husband must divorce his second wife.

(b) The husband must not marry whilst she (the respondent) is his wife.

(c) The land is not to be transferred without her permission.

(d) The land to remain her property during her lifetime.

The Collector accepted this evidence (the appellant does not appear to have been cross-examined as to the alleged conditions) and on the strength of it, ordered that Entry Mukim RegisterNo. 1505 should be registered in the wife's name, instead of that of the appellant, who at the time was the registered proprietor. In his order, the Collector said, "The husband appears to be very intelligent and is in a position to dominate his wife to execute the transfers."

It is from this order that the appellant appeals.

In view of the decision of the Court of Appeal in Alang Said v. Kulop Hamid 6 FMS LR 108 that evidence of an oral agreement to vary a written transfer is not admissible, and that such evidence must be disregarded, I consider that the Collector was wrong. To admit such evidence, would be to defeat the object of land registration, especially as the Land Code provides machinery for the recognition of trusts. In effect, the wife's case before the Collector was, that the husband held the land subject to the four conditions, or in other words "as trustee," which, if this were true, could, under s. 160 of the Land Code, have been provided for, by inserting the words "as trustee" in the transfer, or the woman could have lodged a caveat.

Instead of adopting such a course, the woman transferred the land to her husband absolutely, and free from any condition, and she acknowledged before the Collector that she had done so volu