Gopal Sri Ram JCA:

[1] This is an appeal from the decision of Ranita Hussein JC, given on 15 August 1994, dismissing the appellant's application made by originating summons for the removal of a caveat entered by the respondent against the title to the appellant's land. The appeal was heard on 16 February 1995, and, at the conclusion of argument, it was allowed, indication being given to Counsel that written reasons would be given. These now follow.

[2] The facts relevant to this appeal may be shortly stated. Murugappa Chettiar, now deceased, and to whom we shall refer as "the deceased", is, and was, at all material times, the registered proprietor of all that land held under CT NO 24212 for Lot No 2113 in the Mukim of Serendah. Under his hand, by a Deed dated 1 June 1987, he appointed one Adaikappan Chettiar (whom we shall refer to as Adaikappan) as his attorney. The Power of Attorney did not empower Adaikappan to sell the land in question. It was registered with the Registrar of the High Court as required by Powers of Attorney Act, 1949. Consequently, anyone who wished to find out exactly what powers Adaikappan had as the deceased's attorney could easily do so by conducting a search at the Registry. On 23 April 1992, Adaikappan, in consideration of a sum of RM2,000 received by him, issued a document to three persons. They were the respondent, one Chan Yin Loong and one Nachiappa Chettiar. There is considerable dispute between the parties to this appeal about what this document actually amounts to. The respondent claims it is an option to purchase the deceased's land. The appellant claims that it is not. The conclusion we arrived at and the process by which we reached it make it unnecessary for us to resolve this issue. It is not the critical fulcrum upon which this case turns. We will assume (without deciding) in the respondent's favour and proceed on the basis that the document is an option.

[3] The next event of significance to which attention was drawn is a meeting that took place in late March between Adaikappan and the respondent's solicitor, one Miss Mathilda Chin. The appellant says that at that meeting Miss Chin handed to Adaikappan a manuscript containing the proposed terms of the sale and purchase. The respondents dispute this. Again, we are spared the task of resolving this issue. We will once more assume, but without deciding the point, that the manuscript did not emanate from the solicitor. For it does not matter to the result.

[4] What actually transpired at that meeting is set out in the affidavit of Ms Mathilda Chin and it is best that we reproduce her evidence. This is what she said in the material paragraphs of her affidavit affirmed on 5 August 1994.

3. I wish to state that about late March, 1992, one Lee Tek Mook, NRIC No 3318939 together with one Adaikappan s/o Narayanan Chettiar, Attorney of L Murugappa Chettiar, came to see me regarding the sale and purchase of a piece of land known as Certificate of Title No 24212, Lot 2113, Mukim of Serendah, District of Ulu Selangor.

4. I was informed by Mr Lee Tek Mook that he wished to purchase this said piece of land from the registered proprietor by his attorney and that infact there already exist between Mr Lee and the proprietor by his attorney an agreement for the sale and purchase of the said land. In consideration thereof, Mr Lee had paid an ernest deposit of the sum of RM2,000 which the registered proprietor attorney had accepted and acknowledged receipt.

5. I further wish to state that, I was instructed by Mr Lee to prepare a formal sale and purchase agreement with regards to the sale of the said land.

6. During this meeting, the registered proprietor's attorney informed me that he will be executing the sale and purchase agreement on behalf of the registered proprietor as he has the power and authority to conduct the sale.

7. In response to the representation by the registered proprietor as aforesaid, I requested to see a copy of his power of attorney. He t