Mokhtar Sidin JCA:

The appellant in this appeal was the 2nd respondent in the court below, while the 1st respondent was the applicant in the court below. The 2nd and 3rd respondents were the 1st and 3rd respondents respectively in the court below. It is clear to us that the 2nd and 3rd respondents are not really interested in the outcome of this appeal except to abide by any decision of this court. It was for this reason that the Legal Adviser, Puan Mary Lim, was not present at the hearing as her presence had been excused at an earlier hearing on 4 March 1997. Mr. Sivarasa mentioned on her behalf.

We have given our decision earlier whereby we have dismissed the appellant's appeal with costs. We now give our reasons for doing so.

The 1st respondent took out an originating summons against the appellant, the 2nd and 3rd respondents to remove a private caveat No. 1895-95 Jilid 192 Folio 17 dated 13 October 1995 entered on a piece of land grant No. 2410 Lot 312 Mukim Si Rusa, Port Dickson (hereinafter referred to as the said land). This caveat was entered by the appellant. By the originating summons the 1st respondent prayed that the 3rd respondent cancelled and removed the private caveat and the said land be registered in the name of the 1st respondent. The 1st respondent also prayed that the appellant or his servants/agents be prohibited from entering anymore caveat in respect of the said land and that the 3rd respondent be directed not to register anymore caveat by the appellant or his servants/agents. The learned judge in the court below allowed the application by the 1st respondent and ordered the caveat be removed.

In the affidavit in support of its originating summons, the 1st respondent stated that by a sale and purchase agreement dated 27 September 1995 (hereinafter referred to as the agreement), the 1st respondent bought the said land from the 2nd respondent (hereinafter referred to as the Union) at the price of RM950,000. The 1st respondent paid RM95,000 at the time when the agreement was executed and the balance of RM855,000 was paid on 30

October 1995 to Messrs. R. Shan & Associates, solicitors for the Union. On 16 November 1995 the solicitors for the Union forwarded the said sum of RM950,000 to Allied Bank (Malaysia) Berhad to secure the release of the charge on the said land. In accordance with cl. 11.1 of the agreement the interest on the said land was to be transferred to the 1st respondent. Form 14A of the National Land Code had been duly executed by the trustees of the Union. All documents in respect of this transaction had been forwarded to the collector of stamp duty and the assessment in respect of stamp duty was RM44,970. On 13 October 1995, the day when the collector made the assessment, the appellant entered the caveat to stop the transfer of the said land from the Union to the 1st respondent. The caveat was entered on the ground that the sale of the said land was not approved by the executive council of the Union and the sale price was below the market value. The 1st respondent wrote to the collector to defer payment until 13 January 1996 or seven days after the removal of the private caveat (which is the subject matter of this appeal) whichever is the latter.

The 1st respondent then took out this originating summons to remove the caveat on the ground that the reasons given by the appellant to enter the caveat were not valid. It was contended by the 1st respondent that from the extract of the minutes of the meeting of the executive council of the Union held on 10 September 1995 it is clear that the council had unanimously decided and approved the sale of the said land to the 1st respondent at the price of RM950,000. The hon. secretary general of the Union had signed the statutory declaration to sell the said land to the 1st respondent. The trustees had also signed the agreement. This evidence was confirmed by one S. Thamotharam, the hon. secretary general of the Union. He went on to state tha