LC Vohrah J:

The plaintiffs' claim is for delivery of vacant possession and damages in respect of land identified as QT (M) 497 Lot 546 in the Mukim of Kuala Lumpur, Selangor ("the said land") of which they became registered owners. The defendant in his statement of defence alleges fraud and conspiracy on their part in taking a transfer of the title to the said land and in his counterclaim prays for delivery of the title to him on the ground that he is beneficial owner.

I find the following facts either admitted or proved. The defendant and one Wong Chin Kuang ("the deceased"), the father of the plaintiffs, were relatives and in 1959 each of them worked as a cook in an English home. At that time the deceased was staying at house No. 54 Sungei Way New Village on Lot No. 547 which is adjacent to the said land. The deceased's daughter Wong Choh Yuen (PW5) who is elder to the plaintiffs in 1958, two years after her marriage and whilst residing in Tampin with her husband, applied for the alienation to her of the said land for a dwelling-house site. The Collector of Land Revenue by a notice dated 4 July 1958 (P5) informed her that her application had been approved on the terms and conditions set out in the notice, one of which prevented her from transferring or otherwise disposing of the said land for a period of 10 years from the date of the registration of the approved application without the approval of the Collector. The notice also stated that on payment of the sum of RM65.50 made up of premium, rent, survey fees, etc., her name would be recorded in the roll of approved applications. In the event her name was recorded in Approved Application No. 382/59. The deceased in what was a Chinese patriarchal family conducted the affairs relating to the said land on behalf of PW5 and in 1959, because of his blood relationship with the defendant, entered into an arrangement with the defendant whereby the defendant caused a house to be built on the said land and entered into occupation thereof (and continues to do so). In 1966 the defendant allowed PW5 to build a house on the said land. Subsequently PW5's approved application was replaced by a document of qualified title QT (M) No. 497 which was registered and issued to her on 12 March 1968 whereupon she became the registered proprietor of the said land. The QT granted her a lease for 30 years expiring on 11 March 1998. On 17 November 1977 PW5 transferred the said land to her younger brothers, the plaintiffs. On 10 February 1979 the plaintiffs sent the defendant a notice to quit the said land.

Of the four issues that were formulated at the beginning of the trial for consideration of the Court, I have now at the end of the trial, at the request of both Counsel to consider only three, namely:

1) whether the defendant is a licensee at will of the said land;

2) whether the defendant is the beneficial owner of the said land; and

3) whether the plaintiffs registered as proprietors of the said land are in fact trustees for the defendant.

To consider what rights the defendant has in relation to the said land it is in my view important to ascertain what the actual arrangement was between the defendant and the deceased which resulted in the defendant building the house and entering into occupation of the said land. We have now only the version of the surviving party. The defendant's evidence is that the deceased some time in 1959 visited him at his employer's residence and offered to sell him the said land for RM900 because his daughter who held the QT did not require the said land and wanted to sell it as she was staying in Tampin. He accepted the offer on that very day and soon afterwards on 10 April 1959 paid the deceased the sum asked for in the presence of PW5, one Lai Ang (now deceased) who was a building contractor and Lai Ang's son (DW2). At the same time he also paid Lai Ang RM1,000 towards the cost of building his house on the said land to be completed (and it was in fact completed) by Se