This is an appeal under section 418 of the National Land Code against the decision of the Collector of Land Revenue, Gombak. The decision involved two transactions over the undivided shares of the second respondent in land EMR. 4512 Lot No. 3516 in the Mukim of Setapak.

The facts leading up to the appeal may be briefly stated as follows. On August 14, 1979 a transfer Form 14A was submitted to the Land Office Gombak by the appellant. The form was signed by one Misriah binte Amirin claiming to be the attorney of the second respondent as transferor and the appellant as transferee of 12/19 shares in the said land for a consideration of $50,000. When Form 14A was presented it was also accompanied by an office copy of a document purporting to be the power of attorney. The photostat copy of the document shows, however, that it was not signed by the second respondent although it carries the signature of one Sarathy, Commissioner for Oath, Kuala Lumpur as witness. The photostat copy also carries the endorsement of the Senior Assistant Registrar, High Court, Kuala Lumpur certifying it as an office copy and that a true copy had been deposited at the High Court Kuala Lumpur with registration No. 1139/79.

When the appellant presented Form 14A to the Land Office with the office copy of the purported power of attorney mentioned earlier he did not however also produce the original issue document of title as required by section 284 of the National Land Code. It was only on September 27, 1979 that the appellant by statutory declaration claimed that the original issue document of title was lost while in his custody and he then applied for a fresh issue of document of title. Despite the non-production of the original issue document of title the presentation was recorded in the Presentation Book of the Land Office.

On November 20, 1979 the Land Office received a letter from the second respondent stating that she had never at any time appointed the said Misriah binti Amirin to be her attorney, and that any document purporting to give such power of attorney was "false" or "forged" — see copy of letter marked "KTAA 2" attached to affidavit of the Assistant Collector of Land Revenue, Gombak, affirmed on November 2, 1981.

After what he referred to as "thorough examination" of the documents presented by the appellant, the Collector found that the instrument Form 14A was not fit for registration and he rejected it. In his affidavit he said that he rejected the instrument in accordance with section 298 of the National Land Code on the grounds that:—

(a) The issue document of title was not presented with Form 14A;

(b) The power of attorney submitted was not signed by the donor and as such was an insufficient or void document.

It would appear that the following facts are not in dispute. It is not disputed that in the register document of title an entry was made on the purported transfer of the said 12/19 share of the said land to the appellant, but that the entry was subsequently cancelled with the word "Di-batalkan" written or printed across the entry. The cancellation was signed by the Collector but the entry was, however, not signed. The date of the cancellation was said to be at or about January 21, 1980. Therefore the entry was in the register for the period August 14, 1979 to January 21, 1980.

It is also not disputed that on January 4, 1980 the Collector received an application for a transfer of the undivided shares of the second respondent to the second, third and fourth respondents and that these transfers were duly registered by the Collector on the same date. In the memorial the shares of the second, third and fourth respondents are stated as 32/52, 15/52 and 5/52 respectively.

Let us now come to the arguments of the appellant. It is the contention of the appellant that he is the person lawfully entitled to the 12/19 shares of the said land by reason of the sale and purchase and in fact according to him he was the duly registe