Mahadev Shankar J:

This is an ex-parte application for the extension of a private caveat which has been lodged by the applicant against the land of the respondents (the said land).

On 19 December 1983 the respondents through their solicitor made an offer to sell the said land on certain terms.

On 21 December 1983 the applicant through their solicitor made a counter-offer to purchase the said property on certain terms. This counter-offer was addressed to the respondents' solicitor.

The terms were the subject of a conversation in the course of which the solicitors agreed that one of the clauses in the written Sales Agreement should be deleted.

The applicant's solicitor then engrossed the draft agreement and forwarded six copies thereof to the respondents' solicitor with the request that the same be executed by the respondents. The agreement by then had been signed by the applicant and the covering letter enclosing the engrossed copies of the agreement was accompanied with a cheque for 10% of the purchase price.

The applicant's solicitor stipulated in his covering letter that this cheque was not to be released to the respondents unless they have signed the agreement of sale, signed the memorandum of transfer, and deposited the title deed with the respondents' solicitor. This covering letter is dated 21 December 1983.

Thereafter nothing happened until 21 March 1984. On that day the respondent's solicitor wrote to the applicant's solicitor stating that his clients were unable to agree on certain terms and conditions contained in the written agreement and consequently the applicant's cheque for 10% was returned to the applicant's solicitor uncashed.

The view taken by the applicant and their solicitor was that on the above facts they had a claim to the land and on some date not disclosed to the Court the applicant filed a caveat against the land. The grounds of their claim to the land were:

(a) On or about 21 December 1983 the Landowners agreed to sell and we agreed to purchase all the said land described in the schedule at the purchase price of RM1,359,000.

(b) Accordingly our solicitors, Messrs, Lim & Teng forwarded the Agreement of sale and our payment of RM135,900 being 10% of the purchase price to Messrs. R.K. Menon, Johore Bahru, Solicitors for the Landowners.

(c) The Landowners have now refused to sell the said land to us.

The photocopy of the caveat attached to the supporting affidavit is undated and the statutory declaration is also undated but I assume that the application filed in the Land Office had the dates entered thereon.

Thereafter on 30 October 1984 the respondents through their solicitor filed a notice addressed to the applicant to show cause why the caveat should not be removed.

It is in response to this notice that the applicant has filed the present application. Before I heard this application I drew the attention of the applicant's Counsel to the following authorities:

1. Williams on Titles - 4th Edn. p. 20

2. Megarry on Law of Real Property - 3rd Edn. p. 552.

After hearing the submission of applicant's Counsel on the law and the facts I dismissed this application.

I said that I would give my reasons later and I do so now. A mere chose in action arising out of or incidental to a contract for the sale of land cannot in my view entitle the claimant to lodge a caveat willy nilly to freeze land until his action has been heard.

He has to have something more. That something is "an interest in land". This expression has been the subject of considerable judicial discussion. See "Tenure and Land Dealings in the Malay States" by David Wong pp. 415 - 417 and "Private Caveats" by Wong Kim Fatt pp. 12 - 18.

So far as the facts of this case are concerned, it appears to me that there was never any concluded contract between the parties. Negotiations there were, but the only proper inference that I can draw in the circumstances of this case is that by submitting a formal agreement to the respondents' solicitors which