JUDGMENT

Sproule J:

After stating the facts and dealing with certain matters not material to this report procedeeded:-

The claimants ask for a release of the property seized upon three grounds, (a) that it would be inequitable to allow plaintiff to proceed with his execution before the decision of the suit instituted (or threatened) by Mr Ross, (b) upon the ground that defendant at the date of seizure had no beneficial interest whatsoever in the land seized, and that no priority of instruments arising out of the operation of the Registration of Deeds Ordinance could avail against the claimants equities, (c) that by analogy with the decision in Whiteley v. Delaney [1914] AC 132 and in equity, the mortgage to Khoo Cheow Teong was not merged in the conveyance to claimants, but was kept alive for their benefit and carried their title back to the date of the registration of such mortage, which was long prior to the registration either of the Registrar's order of 29th January 1916 or of the reconveyance to the defendant of 18th August 1915. (The learned Judge then dealt with the first ground which he decided against the claimants).

As to the third ground of the claim, it is an ingenious argu