The plaintiff is a finance company having its registered office at No 43-53, 3rd floor, Penang Road, Penang and carrying on business in the financing of the purchase of motor vehicles under hire-purchase agreements. On 24 September 1977, the plaintiff entered into a hire-purchase agreement with one Chong Chan Fatt of No 98, Jalan Besi, Island Park, Penang ('the hirer') for the hiring of one Mercedes Benz, 240D diesel saloon car bearing chassis no 115117-60-086904; engine no 616916-20-068283 and registration no AV 3366 ('the said vehicle') for a total sum of $33,000 payable by a deposit of $12,000 and the balance by 24 hire rentals. The said vehicle was registered with the Registrar and Inspector of Motor Vehicles, Penang on 24 September 1977 in the name of the hirer, but with the 'ownership claimed' by the plaintiff.

Unfortunately, the hirer never paid the instalments due and in compliance with the terms of the hire-purchase agreement (P1) and the Hire Purchase Act 1967, the plaintiff terminated the said agreement and became entitled to immediate possession of the said vehicle. However, it was only on 6 January 1978 that the plaintiff succeeded in repossessing the said vehicle from Kwong Soon Cheong Co Sdn Bhd, 43, Market Street, Ipoh ('the said B company'). In the course of the inquiries, the plaintiff discovered that the registration no AV 3366 had been changed to PY 4598 and the indorsement of 'ownership claimed' had been cancelled and replaced by 'hak milik di-tuntut oleh Public Finance Bhd' dated 5 December 1977 (AB1 p 8). Therefore, by this writ of summons, the plaintiff has asked this court for a declaration that the said vehicle is the property of the plaintiff and for damages and consequential orders and costs. It is common ground that the only issue in this case is: who has a better title to the said vehicle?

On the face of all available documents before me, in particular the vehicle registration card, AB1, the defendant being the registered owner under the 'ownership claimed' of the said vehicle bearing registration no PY 4598 prima facie becomes the legal owner and therefore has a better title. However, since the plaintiff is disputing the defendant's title to the said vehicle, in my opinion, the onus is on the plaintiff to show that the defendant had acquired title of the said vehicle illegally or without proper inquiry or that he was not a purchaser in good faith.

Mr Lim Chee Sin (PW1) was the main witness for the plaintiff. At the material time, he was the plaintiff's branch manager, and was personally in charge of the hiring of the said vehicle to the hirer upon the execution of P1. He was also responsible for lodging the necessary RIMV forms including producing the vehicle registration book for indorsing the 'ownership claimed' at the RIMV office in Penang. Next, he testified that after he discovered that the hirer did not pay any instalment, he issued the fourth schedule notice, AB8, and notice to repossess, AB9, dated 25 November 1977. However, it was about this period that the plaintiff must have suspected that both the hirer and the vehicle were missing. According to PW1, he personally made inquiries and discovered that the registration numbers had been changed and indorsement of the 'ownership claimed' cancelled. After tracing the whereabouts of the said vehicle, PW1 went to Ipoh on 6 January 1978 to repossess it from the said company.

Encik Mohd Jamil bin Haji Mohd Noor (PW2), the Assistant Director, RIMV, Ipoh, testified that his office did not have the files for vehicles no AV 3366 and PY 4598 as both were missing.

The defendant called three witnesses to testify that the hire-purchase transactions in respect of vehicle registration no PY 4598 were proper and legal and in accordance with normal business transactions. According to Mr Kuan Kok Leong (DW2), Managing Director of Intan Credit Sdn Bhd, on 5 December 1977 he introduced Kwong Soon Cheong Sdn Bhd to the defendant company in or