The facts in this case are as follows:-There is a piece of rubber land just over 5 acres in extent in the Mukim of Simpang Kiri in the District of Batu Pahat. It is registered in the name of Amir bin Haji Ali as guardian of Samat bin Haji Ali, Reduan bin Haji Ali, and Melan bin Haji Ali. These persons were minors at the time of the registration.

On the 25th May, 1940 the defendant was in possession of this land. A suit for recovery of possession etc. was brought against him by Samat, Reduan and Melan. It was subsequently discovered that Samat was dead and on the 13th October 1940 the Collector of Land Revenue granted administration of his estate to Reduan. The proceedings were amended by the substitution as plaintiff of Reduan as administrator of the estate of Samat.

Mr. Mcleod, for the defendant, first submitted that the plaintiffs were not competent to bring this suit. A plea that they were minors was dropped, but he said that the registered owner of the land was Amir bin Haji Ali and only he could bring an action for recovery of its possession. I did not agree with this submission. The registered owners of the land in the Mukim Register are Samat, Reduan and Melan-Amir's name merely appears because it was necessary, as long as they were minors, that the guardian's name should beshown. Amir was never the registered owner; he had certain powers derived from his position as guardian, powers which he might exercise, but only on behalf of the owners. It is admitted that at the date of the suit Reduan and Melan were no longer minors. They were therefore free to act without the intervention of a guardian and as the registered owners were competent to take these proceedings.

Mr. Mcleod then relied on two leasee of the land to the defendant. The 1st was dated the 22nd November 1933. The lessors were Amir bin Haji Ali and Ramlah binti Haji Arip. The lessee was the defendant. The period was 10 years from the 1st November 1933.

The 2nd lease is dated the 5th August 1939. The lessor is Amir bin Haji Ali as guardian of Samat, Reduan and Melan; and it recites that Samat, Reduan and Melan are the registered owners of the land. The lessee is the defendant. The lease is to expire on the 1st November 1943.

The reason for this second lease was that on the same date, 5th August 1939, the land was transferred from Amir bin Haji Ali and Ramlah binti Haji Arip to Amir bin Haji Ali as guardian of Samat, Reduan and Melan for the sum of $750.

Mr. Barrett, for the plaintiffs, meets the production of these leases with two points. He says that the title to the land is by entry in the Mukim Register under Part III of the Land Enactment, and that land held under such a title cannot be leased. In support of this he cites MAM Annamalai Chettiar v Gwee Chwee Chee 1 JLR 78 and STSP Raman Chettiar v Teo Gee & another 5 MLJ 160. In the 1st case Savage-Bailey, J., said at 1 JLR page 81,

"Part III of the Enactment which is alone applicable to lands held under entry in the Mukim Register makes no provision whatsoever for the creation of leases of land held under such a title and such are not recognised by the Enactment."

In the 2nd case Thorne, J., said at 5 MLJ page 161,

"I entertain some considerable doubt as to whether a proprietor of land held by entry in the Mukim Register can grant an effective lease of his land."

Mr. Barrett's second point is that both the leases are invalid and he relies on section 67 (1) of the Land Enactment, which enacts that no lease for a term exceeding 3 years is valid unless it is registered.

For the defendant Mr. Mcleod did not reply to the argument that the law refused to recognise leases of this description of land. He admitted that the leases were not registered and were legally invalid. He took his stand on the fact that his client had given valuable consideration for his lease and that equity demanded that the Court should recognise it. He cited the case of Boase v Cluny Rubber Estates Ltd & others (1913) 2 FMSLR 130