Abbott J:

On 28 October 1948, a lady named Kami Begum binti Abdul Hamid Beg died intestate; one of her sons, the defendant, was granted Letters of Administration in respect of her estate.During her lifetime the deceased lady possessed a certain house and land in Jalan Tunku Hassan, Seremban.This house and land formed part of her estate.On 4 February 1950 the defendant agreed to sell the house and land to the plaintiff for the sum of $17,000 and the plaintiff paid $5,000 by way of deposit. A written agreement (Exh. A) was entered into between the plaintiff and the defendant, wherein (para. 3) the defendant undertook without delay to seek the permission of the Court to sell the house and land and the defendant undertook (para. 7) to take all the necessary steps to give valid title to the plaintiff; the plaintiff undertook to pay the balance of the purchase price within two weeks of obtaining the Court's permission to sell.In para. 6 of the agreement the defendant undertook, in the event of his refusal to effect the transfer within two weeks of receiving permission of the Court to sell, to refund to the plaintiff the amount of deposit ($5,000) and, in addition, to pay to the plaintiff $5,000 by way of damages.The defendant never applied for permission of the Court to sell and he has taken no steps whatsoever to carry out his part of the agreement.The plaintiff, with full consent of the defendant, has been in occupation of the premises from 4 February 1950.The plaintiff asks this Court for an order for specific performance and such other further relief as may be just.The defendant, by having denied the validity of the agreement, asks for damages, presumably in trespass, at the rate of $250 a month for the period in which the plaintiff and his tenant occupied the premises.

I will say at once that the defendant has acted throughout in a most disgraceful way.There are no merits whatsoever in his case and it remains to be seen whether the law requires that he succeed in his counterclaim.It is perfectly clear that, two years after he had entered into this agreement, he received a better offer and he deliberately accepted it and kept the plaintiff in the dark concerning this better offer.Further, he deliberately lied by saying, that an application for leave to sell had actually been filed in, the Court.Such is the defendant.

Seven issues were agreed to between learned Counsel.

Before proceeding to the issues there is one point which I think should be cleared up. It might be suggested that para. 6 of the agreement gives an option to the defendant to refuse transfer of the land and house on the refund of the deposit of $5,000 and on the payment of $5,000 by way of damages.By the wording of the paragraph itself it is quite clear that such an option would not be available to the defendant until after he had obtained the permission of the Court to sell.Paragraph 6, therefore, is of no avail to him.

As regards issue 1, "Did the defendant ratify the agreement after extracting Letters of Administration?" I am perfectly satisfied that he did and this satisfaction is derived from the evidence of Mr. Hall who was then acting as plaintiffs lawyer.Mr. Hall told the Court that on 19 July 1952 - three days after Letters of Administration had been extracted - the defendant informed him that he was proceeding with an application to seek the permission of the Court to sell the house and land.

As regards issue 2, "Is the agreement binding on the estate of the deceased?". In the case of Re Watson, ex parte Phillips 18 QBD 116 AND 19 QBD 234 it was held that where, daring the time when there is no personal representative of the estate of a deceased person, services have been rendered which not only were for the benefit of the estate, but also were rendered under a contract with someone who subsequently by becoming administrator became authorized to bind the estate, and who ratified the contract, the estate of the deceased is liable for such services.