(delivering the Judgment of the Board): This appeal from an order of the Court of Appeal in Singapore (Wee Chong Jin C.J., Chua and Sinnathuray JJ.) dated February 17, 1982 reversing an order of Rajah J. dated December 5, 1980, arises out of a bitter and long-standing dispute between brothers regarding title to land in Singapore now known as Nos. 1, 3, 5, 7, 9, 11, 15, 17, 19 and 21 Jalan Jermin, Singapore ("the property") those being the numbers of certain houses built on that land after its acquisition in 1954. The circumstances of that acquisition were acutely in issue at the trial of the action before Rajah J. in the High Court of Singapore in March and April 1980. The plaintiff in the action, now the appellant before this Board, initially sued his three brothers, the first three defendants in the action and others who need no specific mention, asserting as against them a legal and beneficial title to the property and also claiming specific performance of what became known at the trial as "the exchange agreement", allegedly concluded between the appellant and his brothers in 1966 or 1967. Subsequently one of the brothers, (the third defendant), died and the administrators of his estate were substituted as the third defendant. Those administrators are now the third respondent. The first two defendants are the first two respondents to this appeal.

At the trial the appellant alleged certain facts in support of his claim which if proved to the satisfaction of the trial judge would have gone some way to establish his claim. Their Lordships summarise those facts as follows:—

1. The first respondent bought the property at an auction in February 1954, together with two other pieces of land also then vacant but not presently relevant, for a total of $17,792.00.

2. In so buying the property the first respondent was acting as agent for the appellant.

3. Though the first respondent paid first the 25% deposit and thereafter the balance of 75% of the purchase price by means of his own cheques drawn on his own bank account, the appellant had successively reimbursed the first respondent in respect of each of those two amounts. Each reimbursement was in cash, that cash emanating from profitable transactions of an unspecified kind effected during the Japanese occupation of Singapore. The property was accordingly conveyed to and registered in the name of the appellant who thereafter held the title deeds.

4. Between 1954 and 1959 the appellant advanced to the first respondent a total of $200,000 in four equal sums of $50,000. The making of these advances was said to be evidenced by contemporary pencil entries in a notebook kept by the appellant. That notebook was put in evidence at the trial.

5. In 1962 the appellant wished to develop the property and to obtain repayment of these loans. The first respondent was unable to repay the loans but offered to develop the property for the appellant and it was agreed that the ten semi-detached houses which their Lordships have already mentioned should be built. All the arrangements were made by the first respondent to employ the architect and pay him and the building contractors. The development was completed in March/April 1967. On completion the title deeds were given to the appellant by the first respondent.

6. In 1966 or 1967 the exchange agreement was concluded. Their Lordships do not find it necessary to relate the details of what was claimed to have been agreed on this occasion but are content gratefully to adopt the summary in the judgment of the Court of Appeal.

7. During 1967 the brothers and their families took possession of the various semi-detached houses on completion. The appellant thereafter occupied Nos. 19 and 21.

8. In April or May 1968 the title deeds were given by the appellant to a firm of solicitors in Singapore with instructions to obtain the issue of separate titles to the various houses, but thereafter the present dispute arose. The present action started in 1972