Howes J:

The facts and arguments sufficiently appear from the report.

[After setting out the plaintiff's Statement of Claim mentioned in the headnotes his Lordship proceeded:-] The facts as disclosed from the plain evidence and the documents, show that:

On 23 December 1919 the plaintiff acquired a half share in Grant No. 8006 for $3,000.

On 9 April 1920 the plaintiff sold one half of his half share to a woman Seripah for $1,700 retaining the balance (one-quarter of Grant No. 8006) for himself.

On 21 January 1921 the plaintiff transferred this remaining quarter interest in Grant 8006 to MAR Arumugam Chetty (hereinafter referred to as the deceased) for $250 after which the plaintiff went to India.

On 16 December 1925 the deceased sold this quarter-interest in the same land (then comprised in Certificate of Title No. 6272 Lot 14135) to KA Dawoosah Rawther, for $1,200 (less a commission of $100), and received $1,100 net.

On 25 February 1939, deceased died and subsequently letters of administration were granted to the defendant, who is sued in her capacity of administratrix of the deceased.

In July or August 1939 the plaintiff returned to Malaya for the first time since his departure in 1921.

According to the plaintiff, the deceased and he had been friends since childhood, and came from the same village in India. In 1920, his father being ill, the plaintiff wished to go to India for an uncertain time. As this piece of rubber land was the only property the plaintiff had in Malaya, he asked the deceased to take care of it for him, and, if it were profitable to do so, to sell the land and send the money to him in India.

The deceased promised to tap the rubber and collect the income until the land was sold. The plaintiff said he trusted the deceased completely, as he was a very good friend and a keen business man.

The plaintiff says he signed the transfer to deceased under the impression that he was signing a power of attorney. No money passed, and he did not know that the consideration for the sale had been put at $250.

Presumably, that figure was inserted with a view to saving stamp fees, as, in view of the fact that the plaintiff had previously sold one quarter for $1,700 in April 1920, and the deceased subsequently sold the land for $1,200, the figure $250 must have been only a nominal one.

The deceased visited India in 1923 and stayed for about a year. The plaintiff saw him and inquired about the land. The deceased said "I have collected the income and credited it to your name. I haven't sold the land yet". Later, the deceased returned to Malaya, and on 18 December 1925 sold the land, as already stated.

Nine months later, on 13 September 1926 the deceased wrote to the plaintiff (ex 6) "Now, your rubber land has been sold at $1,200, a commission of $100 was paid and the balance of $1,100 has been credited to you here".

No reference was made to the income which had been collected by deceased between the transfer to him and the date of the sale of the land.

Although in the statement of defence it was alleged that the transfer of the land to the deceased was an actual sale, and the land was never held in trust for the plaintiff, that position has not been maintained at the trial, in view of the deceased's letter (Ex 6). The defendant's Advocate has relied on the Limitation Enactment, and submits that even if the deceased was a trustee of the land, once it was sold, and the proceeds and income were free to be used by the deceased as he liked, the trust ceased, and thereafter the relationship between the plaintiff and deceased was that of a debtor and creditor, to which Limitation would apply.

According to para. five of the plaint, it had been verbally arranged between the plaintiff and deceased that after selling the rubber, the deceased should credit the balance in hand from time to time to an account in the name of the plaintiff in the books of the deceased's firm.

Para. 6 of the plaint stated that the decea