Edgar Joseph Jr J:

[1] This case is about three relatives who, although at one time, on very close terms, have fallen out, so much so, that their quarrel has erupted into a long drawn out and bitter legal battle about the ownership of a dwelling house ("the disputed property"). Each side has accused the other of lying. Allegations of deception and deceit have been freely made. As a trier of fact, it will be my task to determine where the truth lies.

2

"The great virtue of the English trial is usually said to be the opportunity it gives to the judge to tell from the demeanour of the witness whether or not he is telling the truth. I think that this is over-rated .... I would adopt in their entirety (this being the highest form of judicial concurrence) the words of Mr Justice MacKenna: 'I question whether the respect given to our findings of fact based on the demeanour of the witness is always deserved. I doubt my own ability and sometimes that of other judges, to discern from a witness's demeanour, or the tone of his voice, whether he is telling the truth. He speaks hesitantly. Is that the mark of a cautious man, whose statements are for that reason to be respected or is he taking time to fabricate? Is the emphatic witness putting on an act to deceive me, or is he speaking from the fullness of his heart, knowing that he is right? Is he likely to be more truthful if he looks me straight in the face than if he casts his eyes on the ground perhaps from shyness or a natural timidity? For my part I rely on these considerations as little as I can help."

[4] With Lord Wright's and Lord Devlin's warnings in mind, I would turn to consider the particular circumstances of this case.

[5] The plaintiff, Mr Tan Cheng Hock ("Mr Tan" for short) is a recently retired businessman aged 76 but, at all material times to this suit, he dealt in refrigerators and carried on a Cold Storage business under the name or style of "Union Cold Room" at premises known as No 422, Penang Road.

[6] The first defendant, Mr Chan Thean Soo ("Mr Chan" for short) is a security officer at Bayan Lepas, aged 62 years, but at all material times to this suit, he was a clerk attached to the Vehicle Department of the Municipality, Penang, and in receipt of a salary of $193 per month.

[7] The second defendant ("Mrs Chan" for short) is the wife of Mr Chan and also a niece of Mr Tan. She is a housewife and, during her younger days, stayed under the same roof as Mr Tan; in fact, they stayed in the house of Mr Tan's younger brother.

[8] I have said that the parties were on very close terms; two examples will illustrate this. Mr Chan used to borrow Mr Tan's pick-up van during weekends and holidays to hunt game. They also shared the kill. As regards Mrs Chan, whenever she visited Mr Tan, he would, at the end of each visit, take the trouble to drive her home in his car. Such then was the relationship of the parties before they fell apart.

[9] In order to elucidate the issues, I shall first of all state the facts about which there was no dispute.

[10] Some time in July 1955, Mr Chan formally applied in writing to the M