Ali FJ:

This is an appeal against the dismissal of the appellant's claim for $7,000.

The claim arose out of a transaction involving the transfer of appellant's land, Lot No. 60, to the respondent and the transfer of respondent's land, Lot No. 177, to the appellant. Both transfers were executed on 21 March 1965.

The appellant's case, as stated in the pleadings, is that the consideration for the transfer of Lot No. 60 was $25,000 and that for Lot No. 177 was $14,000, thereby leaving a balance of $11,000 which was agreed to be settled by (a) Nik Hassan Yahya, $4,000, and (b) Nik Abdul Majid Yahya, $7,000. Both Nik Hassan and Nik Abdul Majid are the sons of the respondent. In this appeal we are only concerned with the sum of $7,000 which was agreed to be settled by Nik Abdul Majid.

The manner in which Nik Abdul Majid Yahya was to settle the amount is described in para. 6(c) of the statement of claim in these words -

The defendant's son Nik Abdul Majid Yahya agreed to build and complete a building on plot No. 5 of Lot No. 47 S 24, Kota Bharu and to transfer the said plot of land and building to and for the benefit of the defendant's nominee Nik Halimah binti Abdul Rahman for the value of $16,000 and agreed to acknowledge receipt of payment of a deposit of $6,300 and $700 for additions to the building and loan charges from the balance of the said consideration due from the defendant to the plaintiff;

(The word "defendant's" as italicized appears to be a typing error. It should read "plaintiff's").

Immediately following the above stated averment the appellant went on to say that Nik Abdul Majid made oral representation that he had the power and authority to sell the land and house to Nik Halimah and it was on such representation that he (the appellant) accepted the offer to settle. Having said that, he went on to allege that the said representation by Nik Abdul Majid was false and untrue in that he (Nik Abdul Majid) did not have the power and authority to sell the land and house to Nik Halimah. Then, apparently in anticipation of the defence reliance on the said agreement with Nik Abdul Majid the appellant contended that it cannot be so relied upon being void for false representation and also for lack of consideration. Paragraphs 16 and 17 of the Statement of Claim contained these averments. Such was the appellant's case as it stood on the pleadings before the trial Court.

The respondent's defence was a denial of the liability to pay the amount claimed on two grounds, namely (a) that the consideration for Lot No. 60 was not $25,000 but $10,000 and (b) Nik Hassan and Nik Abdul Majid were not acting as agents for the respondent when they respectively agreed to settle the balance of the purchase price.

On the question whether the consideration for Lot No. 60 was or was not $25,000 as in (a) above the evidence at the trial may be summarised as follows: The appellant and his witness, Nik Hashim, stated on oath that on 20 March 1965, i.e., before the transfer, there was a meeting in Nik Hassan's house when Nik Hassan and Nik Abdul Majid agreed that $25,000 was to be the consideration for the transfer of Lot No. 60. Nik Hassan was not called to give evidence but Nik Abdul Majid was. He denied any such meeting or agreement. He admitted, however, that there was a meeting on 20 March 1965 in his mother's house. He did not elaborate. The respondent also gave evidence. She said this "I do not know for how much the plaintiff was to transfer the land to me. I went to land office just to sign the transfer." The Memorandum of Transfer in respect of the transaction on 21 March 1965 as filed in the land office shows the amount $10,000 as the consideration for the transfer of Lot No. 60. There was also in evidence the Memorandum of Transfer dated 10 September 1958 relating to a previous transfer of Lot No. 60 from Nik Yahya to Wan Salleh. Nik Yahya is the husband of the respondent or the father of Nik Abdul Majid and Nik Hassan. The si