George Seah SCJ:

This appeal raises a short but interesting point of law. According to the appellant:

(a) In or about 1981 she retained the respondent to act for her in the purchase of a parcel of land situate in the Mukim of Bagan Tiang, Kerian, Perak, known as Lot No. 1811 comprised in state lease No. 1327 containing as area of 15 acres 2 roods 30 poles or there-about (hereinafter referred to as the said land). The transaction was successfully concluded by the registration of a memorandum of transfer of the said land at the Ipoh land office on 13 July 1982 vide Persn. No. 12791/82 Jilid No. 1542 Folio No. 88 in the name of the appellant and the issue document of title to the said land was duly delivered and received by the respondent;

(b) On 14 July 1983 the appellant entered into a sale and purchase agreement of the said land with Messrs. Kurasani Sdn. Bhd. and the balance of the purchase price was paid by Kurasani on 12 September 1983. For the purpose of this land transaction the appellant retained Messrs. Lim Cheng Poh & Lim as her solicitors;

(c) On 21 July 1983 the appellant instructed her solicitors to demand the return of the issue document of title to the said land from the respondent. A reminder was sent on 22 August 1983. On 13 September 1983 the appellant formally revoked the retainer and discharged the respondent and requested that the issue document of title be handed over to her solicitors. The respondent refused to comply with this demand.

The respondent do not appear to dispute the above statements of the appellant but in defence state as follows:

(i) That on 24 February 1982 the appellant executed a power of attorney in favour of her son, Gee Kuang Chin and that this Instrument was registered at Ipoh High Court on 19 March 1982 vide P/A No. 317/82. This power of attorney was subsequently cancelled by the appellant on 12 September 1983.

(ii) That when Gee Kuang Chin was an attorney of the appellant it was alleged that he entered into a few sale and purchase agreements disposing of several portions of the said land. Gee Kuang Chin had denied signing these agreements which are now the subject of legal proceedings in the Court below.

When the respondent failed to hand over the issue document of title to the said land to the appellant or her solicitors and to resolve this impasse, an originating summons was taken out by the appellant for "an order that M/s. Toh Thiam Hock & Co., the former solicitors to the plaintiff do deliver to M/s. V. Muthusamy & Co., the solicitors for the plaintiff such documents of title relating to all that parcel of land situate in the Mukim of Bagan Tiang, Kerian, Perak, known as Lot No. 1811 comprised in state lease no. 1327 in the custody of power of the said M/s. Toh Thiam Hock & Co. and costs".

The respondent then applied for an interpleader summons to be served on the various alleged purchasers of the portions of the said land (hereinafter referred to as the claimants) to appear and state the nature and particulars of their respective claims to the subject-matter of this action. It is clear from the opposing affidavits filed by the Claimants that after reciting the alleged sale and purchase agreements entered into with the appellant's attorney in 1982 or thereabout they also rely on cl. 11 of the alleged agreements which reads:

Until such time when a proper representation is agreed to by all the other co-owners of the other various portions of the said land, the relevant title of the land shall be kept in the safe custody by M/s. Toh Thiam Hock & Co., advocates & solicitors of No. 16, Kota Road, Taiping who shall be the stakeholders thereof.

The learned Judge dismissed the originating summons after a hearing holding that "Until such time when the issue between the plaintiff and the purchasers are settled the defendants are in no position to release the title deed to anyone. They are in no position to hand over the title deed to the plaintiff either."

The appellant was di