Suffian J:

This appeal raises the question whether the plaintiff who was in unlawful occupation of State land may maintain an action for trespass against the defendant from whom he had acquired the land and by whom he was subsequently dispossessed of it.

The defendant planted rubber on State land. This must have been many years ago, for certainly by May 1958, the rubber was tappable. He had no permission of any kind to cultivate the State land, and it is not in controversy that even today not only has he no title, he has not even a Surat Akuan to it.

The facts as found by the learned President, and I see no reason to disturb his findings, are that the defendant was related to the plaintiff, the defendant owed $1,200 to Yeoh, some time in 1958 the defendant asked the plaintiff to pal, off this loan, the plaintiff agreed to do so, he, borrowed money from his cooperative society, and he paid Yeoh the $1,200. The consideration for all this was that the defendant should transfer his rubber land to the plaintiff if the Government were to approve his application for the land. The defendant let the plaintiff into possession, the plaintiff tapped the rubber for about 18 months, t