(delivering the judgment of the court): This is an appeal against the decision of the learned judge ordering delivery of vacant possession of two pieces of land situated at Sungai Durian in the Mukim of Tanjong Tualang, Perak and described as Geran Mukim GM 249 No. 41061 and Geran Mukim GM 250 No. 41062 ("the said land").

The respondent/plaintiff is the widow of Kong Foo Chai (deceased) who died on 9 March 1961. She was appointed administratrix of his estate. In that capacity she sued the appellant/first defendant and his brother, the second defendant, for occupying "the said land" and prayed for vacant possession of "the said land" and for damages. The second defendant died on 11 December 1979 and the suit against him was discontinued.

In 1957, for services rendered as a special constable, the deceased was granted "the said land" by the government for planting rubber trees under a land scheme. The titles to "the said land" were issued on 11 December 1972. Each title covers an area of over five acres. Attached to each title is the condition that the land is not to be transferred, charged or leased except with the permission of the Menteri Besar.

According to the plaintiff, after the deceased was granted "the said land" he discussed the matter with her. It was decided that they should employ someone to clear "the said land" for cultivation as their children were too young and would not be able to help. At the time, she was also pregnant. The deceased's friend Choong Kam was asked to help to clear the land and plant rubber trees. He promised to look after the rubber trees for four years and they would pay him $1,000. The deceased was unable to pay the $1,000 when he died. The respondent tried to pay off the $1,000 but Choong Kam asked for $2,800. This amount was increased to $4,000 and eventually to $10,000. The respondent was unable to raise the amount. Choong Kam died on 15 October 1980.

In 1965, the respondent went to "the said land" and found the appellant tapping the rubber trees. She asked him to stop tapping but he refused. She put up four galvanished tin signboards prohibiting trespassers and tapping of the rubber trees. Later, she found the signboards missing and rubber trees being tapped. In 1977, the replanting board approved replanting of rubber trees in "the said land". She went to "the said land" and told the appellant that she wanted to cut down the old rubber trees and to do replanting as she was granted replanting grants. The appellant threatened to harm her if she did so. She went to the Land Office in Batu Gajah and was advised to seek legal advice. Notices were issued to the appellant and the second defendant to vacate "the said land". When they failed to comply with the notices, she sued them.

The defence is that the appellant and the second defendant had purchased "the said land" from the deceased for $500, and that the appellant had contributed half of the amount. Further, the appellant said he had been paying the quit rent since. Also, he had been cultivating "the said land" and enjoying the profits therefrom. It was alleged that in order to avoid the forfeiture of the land by the Collector of Land Revenue, the deceased requested them to clear "the said land" and to plant rubber trees thereon upon the condition that he was to hold "the said land" upon trust for their benefit. In consideration thereof, they jointly paid him the $500. An agreement dated 13 March 1957 was executed by the deceased and the second defendant.

The learned judge has seen and heard the witnesses and would be in a better position to assess their credibilities. In such a case, the appellate court should be slow to interfere. The learned judge was clearly not impressed by the appellant as he was by the respondent. He was not convinced that the appellant had paid any money to the deceased. He was satisfied on the oral and documentary evidence that the respondent had established her case against the appellant. As