The legal principle established is that a vendor who is merely a 'bare trustee' for a purchaser cannot sell or encumber the property, especially when the full purchase price has been paid.

[1] There are two appeals fixed before us. Appeal No B-02(NCVC)(W)-638-04/2016 ("Appeal No 638") is an appeal by the Appellants, Bulyah Binti Ishak and Noraini Binti Abdullah, the Administrators of the Estate of Nor Zainir Bin Rahmat (the 1st and 2nd Plaintiff/Plaintiff against of the decision of the learned High COURT Judge of Shah Alam ("the learned Judge") dated 07 March 2016 made after a full trial, which dismissed the Plaintiffs' claim against Ambank (M) Berhad ("the 4th Defendant") with costs of RM15,000.00.

[2] Appeal No B-02(NCVC)(W)-803-04/2016 ("Appeal No 803") is an appeal by the Appellant, He-Con Sdn Bhd (the 1st Defendant) against part of the decision of the learned Judge which allowed the Plaintiffs' claim against the Appellant as per prayer (p) of the Statement of Claim, a declaration that the deceased was the beneficial owner of a 3½ Storey Shop Lot at No 31, Jalan Tengku Ampuan Zabedah J9/J, Seksyen 9, 40100 Shah Alam, Selangor Darul Ehsan under Title No HDS 151345, Lot No P T 917 Mukim Bandar Shah Alam, Daerah Petaling, Selangor ("the Property") with costs of RM15,000.00.

[3] Both Appeal No 638 and Appeal No 803 were consolidated vide an order of this COURT dated 31 May 2016. Parties had also informed the COURT that for the purpose of these two appeals they would be referring to the Records of Appeal as in Appeal No 638.

[4] We will refer to the parties as they were described in the High COURT.

Brief Background Facts

[5] The Plaintiffs are the joint administrators of the Estate of Nor Zainir bin Rahmat, the deceased ("the deceased") who passed away on 26 June 2002. The 1st Plaintiff is also the widow of the deceased.

[6] The 1st Defendant, who is the appellant in Appeal No 803 is a company set up under the Companies Act 1965. The 1st Defendant has since been wound up. The 2nd and 3rd Defendants are directors of the 1st Defendant. Both the 2nd and 3rd Defendants are bankrupts.

[7] The 4th Respondent ("the 4th Defendant") is a licensed financial institution which registered address is at Level 22, Bangunan Ambank Group, Jalan Raja Chulan, 50200 Kuala Lumpur.

[8] Pursuant to a Sale and Purchase Agreement dated 22 December 1997 ("the Agreement"), the deceased agreed to purchase the Property from the 1st Defendant. The deceased paid the purchase price in full (see Exhibits P1 & P2 at p 584-594 & 665-668 Volume 2(3) of Appeal Record (AR)).

[9] By a Power of Attorney dated 26 April 2002 which was registered in the High COURT of Kuala Lumpur on 30 April 2002 under Presentation No 29803/02, the 1st Power of Attorney (see Exhibit P2 at pp 665-668 Volume 2(3) AR), the 1st Defendant appointed and / or named the deceased the "Attorney" of the Property. Paragraph 3, of the 1st Power of Attorney states that it is an irrevocable power of attorney.

[10] Pursuant to the Power of Attorney dated 21 May 2012, registered in the High COURT of Kuala Lumpur on 19 July 2002 vide Presentation No 18192/02, the 2nd Power of Attorney (see Exhibit P3 at pp 669-674 Volume 2(3) of AR), the deceased appointed the 1st Plaintiff as the "Substitute Attorney".

[11] The deceased died on 26 June 2002. The Letters of Administration was issued on 09 November 2005 vide Petition No S7-31-280-2004. Both the Plaintiffs were appointed as administrators of the estate of the deceased (see Exhibit P5 at pp 606-609 Volume 2(3) AR)).

[12] At the time the tit