The court determines that a breach of sale conditions renders a Memorandum of Sale null and void.

[1] On 3 February 2006, the appellant had entered into a sale and purchase agreement (the agreement) with the respondent for the purchase of a house at No 2, Tingkat Perpaduan 15, Taman Perpaduan, 31150 Ulu Kinta, Perak (the property). One of the terms of the agreement stipulates that the repayment of the housing loan shall be made by monthly instalments of RM400.00 every month until final settlement.

[2] In an action dated 7 July 2011 in which the respondent herein was the plaintiff, two orders were granted by the High Court on 21 November 2011 (the first order) and 29 August 2012 (the second order). The first order allowed the respondent to sell the property by way of a public auction under the direction of the Court. The second order fixed the reserve price of the property for the purpose of the sale at RM110,000.00. The date specified in the second order for the public auction was 29 November 2012. Both orders (the Orders for Sale) were made as the appellant was alleged to have breached the charge that he had executed in respect of the property which breach, it was revealed, he had failed to remedy. The grounds of the breach were set out in the Notice Of Default With Respect To A Charge (the Notice) dated 31 March 2011 issued in Form 16D pursuant to s 254 of the National Land Code .

[3] The evidence gleaned from the Record of Appeal reveals that on or around September 2012, the respondent's representative informed the appellant that the property would be auctioned off on 29 November 2012. The appellant had made some payments, however he had failed to settle in full the outstanding balance of RM50,321.23 as stated in the Notice. The default resulted in due course in the respondent proceeding with the public auction on 29 November 2012. One Leow Yee Loong was the successful bidder at the public auction.

[4] At the fall of the auctioneer's hammer, both the successful bidder and the respondent entered into a Memorandum of Sale of the property in accordance with the condition in para 12 of the Conditions of Sale. The successful bidder paid 10% of the purchase price to the respondent with the balance thereof to be settled within the period of 120 days from the date of the sale of the property as stipulated under para 14 of the Conditions of Sale.

[5] On 15 March 2013, the appellant filed a Notice of Application seeking firstly a stay of the execution by the respondent and the bidder, of the Memorandum of Sale of the property dated 29 November 2012 until final disposal of the application, and secondly a revocation and setting aside of the said Memorandum of Sale. As the first prayer had already been dismissed by the Court on 8 May 2013, the hearing before the learned judge was confined to the second prayer only. The learned Judge of the High Court dismissed the application on 26 March 2014. The appellant appeals against that judgment to this Court.

[6] The appeal is based on the contention which is confined exclusively to the status of the Memorandum of Sale which learned counsel on behalf of the appellant had submitted, without doubt correctly, that any failure on the part of the successful bidder to comply with the Conditions of Sale would cause the Memorandum of Sale to lapse and become null and void.

[7] Before we go more closely into the merits of this argument, it is perhaps appropriate to mention at this stage two material points. Firstly, this appeal is not concerned with the validity of the Orders for Sale and the public auction of the property. In fact learned counsel for the appellant had made this very clear in his submission on this issue. Secondly, what is apparent from the notes of evidence and the Notice of Application is that the appellant is not seeking to set aside the Orders for Sale. Instead the appellant is merely applying to set