LC VOHRAH J This is an application on the part of the defendant for the writ of summons and statement of claim to be struck out and for the action to be dismissed with costs under Order 18 rule 19 of the Rules of the High Court 1980 and under the inherent jurisdiction of the court.

The pleaded allegations in the statement of claim setting out the facts of the plaintiffs case are that the plaintiffs are members of the Royal Family of the State of Pahang being descendants of Almarhum Sultan Ahmad Muadzam Shah; that by a document made in the year A.H. 1305 (1888 C.E.) by Almarhum Sultan Ahmad Muadzam Shah, the then Sultan and Ruler of the State of Pahang, all that river district being the basin of the Sungei Tembeling and all its tributaries from their sources to their mouths situated in the State of Pahang ("the said land") was alienated to his daughters Tengku Long and Tengku Dalam by way of a gift inter vivos ("the original gift"); that the original gift was made under Muslim Law and had been duly perfected by the grantees, Tengku Long and Tengku Dalam, who became the legal and beneficial owners of the said land, that the abovementioned document constitutes an absolute grant; that the original gift subsists to this day and is not capable of being extinguished except under the provisions of Muslim Law and this has not been done, that the first plaintiff received by way of gift inter vivos from Tengku Long the whole of her undivided share in the said land ("the second gift"); that the second gift was a gift made-under Muslim Law and had been duly perfected by the first plaintiff so that he became the legal and beneficial owner of one half of the said land; that the first plaintiff in 1976 made a gift inter vivos of one half of the second gift to the second plaintiff ("the third gift"); that the third gift had been perfected by the second plaintiff under Muslim Law thus making him the legal and beneficial owner of one out of four equal shares in the said land, that the plaintiffs together are accordingly the beneficial owners of one half of the said land; that the defendant has knowingly and unlawfully exercised dominion over the said land and has alienated by way of licence and/or lease various portions thereof to various persons and bodies for the purpose of logging and planting, thereby causing wrongful loss to the plaintiffs by depletion of the timber therein and by keeping to itself the income from such alienation; that the defendant has unlawfully kept out the plaintiffs from the said land in spite of several notices informing the defendant that the said land had been the subject of a royal gift in the plaintiffs favour; that the defendant has wilfully ignored these notices and has continued to exercise unlawful dominion over the said land thus preventing them from enjoying it thereby causing loss and damage to them; and that the defendant has also wilfully and unlawfully failed and neglected to restore to the plaintiffs the portions of the said land owned by them despite several demands therefor.

In view of the foregoing averments the plaintiffs ask for a declaration that the original gift is valid and subsisting, restitution to them of all those portions of the said land which the defendant had allegedly "wrongfully alienated," and for damages and costs.

Counsel for the defendant seeks to strike out the writ of summons and the statement of claim on four grounds which can be paraphrased as follows:

1) That the plaintiffs have no reasonable cause of action against the defendant;

2) That the plaintiffs, not being the personal representatives of the estate of Tengku Long, have no locus standi;

3) That the plaintiffs action is statute-barred; and

4) That 18,052 title holders in the said land have not been joined as parties to the suit.

I shall now deal with the grounds.

Having regard to the provisions of paragraph (2) of rule 19 of Order 18, I have to consider only the allegations in the