Abdul Razak J:

In this action the plaintiff prays for:

An Order that the Register of Titles in respect of Lot No. 157, 45, 2134, 2135 and 77 in the localities specified therein be rectified and that her name be registered therein as the lawful owner of a half share in respect of each of the said Lots.

The plaintiff was represented by Mr. Gomez. The defendant was unrepresented. At the outset, I made an Order that the action be struck out with liberty to file afresh for reasons which I shall now set out.

The action arose out of a distribution made by the Collector in a distribution suit on the 19 April 1969 in respect of the estate of the deceased Minah binti Mat Diah under the Small Estate (Distribution) Act 1955 wherein the defendant was registered as the proprietor of the land hereinbefore mentioned.

The plaintiff and the defendant were daughters of the deceased Minah binti Mat Diah. The plaintiff said that she was entitled to a half share of the said lands. The defendant said the plaintiff had sold the lands to her at $800. She denied that the plaintiff was entitled to a half share but only to 2/8 share since the deceased had a son named Ahmad bin Mat Diah, since deceased. The said Ahmad bin Mat Diah would, according to the plaintiff, be entitled to 4/8 share. The defendant said the said Ahmad bin Mat Diah had relinquished his claim in her favour and she produced a letter from him (in the bundle) to that effect addressed to the Collector. The defendant was nevertheless prepared to settle the dispute with her sister, the plaintiff, to avoid a Court action by transferring to her Lot No. 77 and 45 (a half share).

The plaintiff said that she was not present at the hearing of the suit. The defendant admitted that the plaintiff was in Siam at the time of the hearing. The plaintiff had nevertheless not filed an appeal earlier against the Collector's decision which she was entitled to do under s. 29 of the said Act. Neither had she applied for an extension of time to file an appeal. She had not given any reason why she had not done so, nor had she filed an action under s. 17 for the Collector to make a fresh finding. She had not applied for an Order of certiorari to quash the finding of the Collector for lack or excess of jurisdiction or acting contrary to the rules of natural justice. She had nevertheless come to Court to ask for an Order that she be substituted for the defendant as the owner of the land, the subject of her claim.

I have to say with respect, that I have no jurisdiction to embark on such a journey. The Collector had made a decision on the facts which was final and conclusive as he was statutorily empowered to do until he was reversed on appeal or until it was subject to review by a declaration or by way of the prerogative writs. At the outset, the plaintiff sought to amend the writ to clothe me with the necessary jurisdiction, to pray instead for a declaration that she was entitled to the land in question. But the precise term of her amendment was not extended to me nor was it clear.

It has been held that in dealing with the application for amendment, the Court has to consider the materiality and effectiveness of the amendment and that it was a well established practice not to allow an amendment where it appeared such an amendment would be useless. The Court should look at the probable consequence of the amendment and if the amendment would be ineffectual then it ought not to be allowed to be made. One such amendment was sought to be made in Ponnusamy v. Nathu Ram [1959] MLJ 228 and was refused. Clearly, the amendment here, even if allowed, would be of no value because I would not have been persuaded to grant the declaration asked for. To have the desired effect, the Collector's decision must at least be impugned. An amendment would, therefore, have involved making the Collector a necessary party to the action with or without the defendant. To allow the application to amend at the trial stage, theref