Pajan Singh Gill FCJ:

A question was framed for consideration of this court by the appellants on the following issue. " Do ss 12 to 16 of the Specific Relief Act 1950 provide a comprehensive code by way of saving to the consequences of frustration that may otherwise affect a contract in which a portion of the subject matter cease to exist at the time of performance? "

We answer the question in the affirmative. However, in order to appreciate our reasons for doing so, a brief chronology of events that lead to this poser is pertinent.

The appellants (Wong Siew Choong Sdn Bhd) at all material times were the registered and beneficial owners of a piece of land held under Lot No. 129, Section 44, Town and District of Kuala Lumpur measuring approximately 100,934 square feet hereinafter referred to as (the said land). The appellants agreed to sell the said land to the respondents (Anvest Corporation Sdn Bhd), principals of M/s Appraisal (M) Sdn Bhd, who were the registered real estate agents at the material time.

On 11 October 1988, the respondents' agent Appraisal (M) Sdn Bhd wrote to the appellants to confirm the terms and conditions of the sale of the said land. The appellants confirmed with the respondents to the following terms and conditions:

1. The price is at $55 per sq ft;

2. The property has a freehold title;

3. Able to deliver vacant possession of the said land;

4. 10% (ten percentum) of the price will be paid on the signing of the sales & purchase agreement; and

5. the balance 90% ( ninety percentum) to be paid (6) six months after signing of the sale & purchase agreement.

Dispute arose over the transfer of the said land to the respondents culminating in the respondents issuing a writ against the appellants claiming inter alia , for specific performance and damages for breach of contract in lieu of or in addition to specific performance.

The learned trial judge hearing the suit, dismissed the suit. The respondents appealed against that decision to the court of Appeal. The court of Appeal on 9 December 1997 unanimously held that the said letter was a concluded and binding contract and allowed the respondents' appeal. The court further ordered the matter be remitted to the High court for specific performance and completion of the contract as embodied in the said letter of 11 October 1988.

The appellants obtained leave to appeal to the Federal court against the order of the court of Appeal. On 1 July 1999 the Federal court unanimously dismissed the appellants' appeal and affirmed the order of the court of Appeal.

Pursuant to the order of the Federal court, the respondents made an application to the High court by way of summons in chambers for specific performance and completion of the contract as agreed by both parties to the agreement.

In its affidavit in support of the application affirmed by Kheoh And Yeng, its director, the respondents, however, deposed that part of the said land had since been acquired under the Land Acquisition Act 1960. Para 5 of the said affidavit states as follows:

5. According to the land title search on the said land conducted on behalf of the Plaintiff on 25th March 1998, there is an endorsement of Form K, i.e. Notice that Possession has been taken of land vide Presn. No. 292/97 dated 1st August 1997, in respect of 1,200 square metres out of the total area of 9,377 square metres of the whole of the said land. I am advised and verily believe that the compensation awarded by the Land Aministrator in respect of the land 1,220 square metres out the said land should be deposited into court pending its further direction and completion of the sale and purchase agreement herein. A copy of the said land search report dated 25th March 1998 is annexed hereto and marked as exhibit 'KAY-4'.

The appellants replied by stating that the respondents had no rights or had not acquired rights in relation to the compensation paid for the acquired portion of the said land. The respondents disputed this and filed a further affid