Introduction:

Before me is an application (Enclosure 3) by the Plaintiff made under Order 89 of the Rules of the High Court 1980 (the Rules). The order sought for is that the Plaintiff should recover possession of the landed properties known as CL 085327180 (applied under P.T. 90080866) (the first piece), CL 085321633 (applied under P.T 87081237) (the second piece) and CL 085327199 (applied under P.T. 90080863) (the third piece) (collectively referred to herein as the 'said lands') all situated at Luangmanis, Labuk Sugut, Sandakan, Sabah, Malaysia. The reason for the Plaintiff in asking for such an order is that he is entitled to possession being the registered owner and that the persons in occupation are there without licence or consent.

The Defendants are disputing the claim of the Plaintiff. Accordingly both sides have filed several affidavits. For the Plaintiff there is the first affidavit in support affirmed by the Plaintiff on 06.04.1999 (Plaintiff's first affidavit). The Defendants filed their respective affidavits in opposition and all affirmed them on 18.06.1999. For the 1st Defendant it is Enclosure 14 (1st Defendant's affidavit), the 2nd Defendant it is Enclosure 17 (2nd Defendant's affidavit), the 3rd Defendant it is Enclosure 20 (3rd Defendant's affidavit), the 4th Defendant it is Enclosure 23 (4th Defendant's affidavit) and the 5th Defendant it is Enclosure 26 (5th Defendant's affidavit).

There is also the affidavit in reply from the Plaintiff affirmed on 25.04.2000 (Enclosure 41) (Plaintiff's affidavit in reply).

In the course of the hearing of this case the Plaintiff made an application (Enclosure 35) under Order 38 rule 13(1) of the Rules for an order that the Assistant Collector of Land Revenue (ACLR) Beluran be compelled to come to Court to produce certain documents. That application was heard and the order granted when the learned counsel for the Defendants offered no objection. Thus in this case there was in fact a short hearing of evidence from the ACLR Beluran and the admission of documents as exhibits.

The Undisputed Facts:

It is not in doubt that presently the ownership of the said lands is now registered under the name of the Plaintiff since 01.09.1998. It is also not in dispute that the Defendants are in fact in occupation of the said lands and having built their houses and also cultivated the same with both short and long terms crops. But the parties have differing versions on what led them to the same lands.

The Version Of The Plaintiff:

According to the Plaintiff he became the owner of the said lands in the sequence as follows:

On the 20.06.1995 the Plaintiff purchased two parcels of the said lands from one Leong Yuk Fong. The Plaintiff purchased the last piece from one Tsen Kin Wai. For the purpose of this Judgment these persons from whom the Plaintiff bought the said lands would be referred to as the vendors. The first, second and third pieces measure 13.25 acres, 12.18 acres and 12.62 acres respectively. On the same day of purchase the respective vendors made the Plaintiff their Attorney.

The Plaintiff disclosed that when he purchased the first piece it was only on approval stage with the title deed yet to be issued. As for the second piece it was at the draft title stage. But the third piece was only at an application stage bearing land application number P.T. 90080863. On 12.09.1996 the registered title for the second piece was issued while for the first and third pieces the respective title deeds were only issued on 16.11.1996.

It is the story of the Plaintiff that after he had purchased the said lands he discovered that there were trespassers on them. Going by his account the 1st Defendant is occupying the first piece while the 2nd and 3rd Defendants are occupying the third piece. As for the second piece the 4th and the 5th Defendants occupy it. The Plaintiff alleged that besides cultivation of crops, wooden houses have also been constructed on the said lands.

In view of the