JUDGMENT

Suleiman Hashim J:

[1] The plaintiff is a member and the incumbent President of Kelab Golf Labuan (hereinafter referred to as the 'LGC') and brings this action on behalf of the club as the plaintiffs.

[2] The defendant's name appears as the registered proprietor of land held under Town Lease No. 207512589 (hereinafter referred to as 'the land').

[3] The plaintiffs' claim with a certain amount of overlapping is as in the amended statement of claim dated 20 August 1991:

(1) A declaration that the defendant holds the said land as a bare trustee for and on behalf of the club which is rightfully entitled to have its name registered on the title held as Town Lease No. 207512589;

(2) A declaration that by reason of fraud the defendant is not entitled to remain as the registered proprietor of the said land and an order that the name of the defendant be expunged from the title to the said land and the same be rectified by the name of the club being substituted in place thereof;

(3) A declaration that the defendant holds the said land held under Town Lease No. 207512589 as a constructive trustee on behalf of the club and is therefore precluded from dealing and/or acting in any manner inconsistent with his duties as constructive trustee;

(4) A declaration that the defendant is bound by proprietary or promissory estoppel and/or estoppel by conduct not to resile from his obligation to convey and transfer the land held under Town Lease No. 207512589 into the name of the club;

(5) A declaration that the club possesses an irrevocable licence in equity to permanently occupy and remain on the said land and enjoy all the benefits thereon;

(6) An order that the defendant do forthwith transfer the said land into the name of the club and/or of its trustee;

xxxxxxx xxxxxxx xxxxxxx xxxxxxx

(9) costs; and

(10) such further or other relief as this honourable Court shall deem fit.

Dated 15 April 1991.

[4] Amended and re-dated 20 August 1991.

[5] Counsels for both parties tendered written submissions and list of authorities, the plaintiffs' on 20 October 1995 and the defendant's on 18 December 1995.

[6] The Agreed Bundle of Documents is marked 'ABD' and the Non-Agreed Bundle of Documents is marked 'NABD'.

[7] At the close of the case for the plaintiffs, the defendant elected not to adduce any evidence and submitted that the plaintiffs had not made out a case to answer, that there was no case for defendant to answer.

The land, a gift from the defendant to the plaintiffs?

[8] Another alternative head of claim by the plaintiffs is that the defendant gifted the land to the plaintiffs.The plaintiffs support this contention by way of Exhs. P1 to P14 and ABD47 to 57 which show that the defendant intended to voluntarily transfer or gift the land to the plaintiffs.

[9] It is the submission by the plaintiffs' Counsel that a gift is complete once the donor has done all that is needed to be done by him to convey the interest in the gift to the donee.The donor need only to execute a valid transfer and to hand the original title to the donee or his representative.Both these conditions were complied with by the defendant.

[10] The plaintiffs relied on the case of Anning v. Anning [1907] ACLR 1057 where it was said by Griffith CJ that, "so in the case of land held under the Act, regulating the transfer of land by registration, I think that a gift would be complete on execution of the instrument of transfer and delivery of it to the donee."

[11] The defendant disagrees with this contention and says that the case of Anning v. Anning must be read subject to the case of Jasbar Kaur & Anor. v. Tharumber Singh[1974] 1 MLRA 350, [1974] 1 MLJ 224 at 228 where it was said that under the Torrens system it is the official act of registration and not the execution and delivery of the dealing or instrument which creates or assigns the estate. his Lordship Azmi LP, goes on to say, "In my view therefore the memorandum of transfer executed by the plaintiff before its registration had not