Raja Azlan Shah J:

The plaintiff claims that a piece of padi land held under Serial No. 44, Lot No. 140, Mukim Melor, Daerah Peringat, District of Kota Bharu, Kelantan, up till now registered in the name of Hamat bin Lembek (deceased), be transmitted and registered in her name, alternatively, for the return of the purchase price of $500, costs of this suit and any further or other relief as this Court deems fit. The defendant is sued as administratrix of her father's estate, Hamat bin Lembek (deceased). The defendant failed to appear in Court, though she was nerved with the notice of today's hearing. She has entered appearance and she has filed her statement of defence in which she denies the sale of the said land and claims that the plaintiff is a trespasser on the said land for a period of some 15 years; she also pleads limitation. The case comes within the provisions of O. 36 r. 31.

Briefly the plaintiff states that after the death of Hamat bin Lembek, his two beneficiaries, Said bin Hamat and Fatimah binte Hamat entered into an agreement with her to sell the said land for $500. That was in 1946. She duly paid the purchase price and went into occupation and planted padi on it and had since enjoyed possession and profit without objection from the beneficiaries. She had also paid the annual quit rents for the said land. She had repeatedly asked the beneficiaries to take out letters of administration in respect of the deceased's estate so that they could transfer the said land to her. The beneficiaries did nothing. One of the beneficiaries, Said bin Lembek had since died and it was only on 30 January 1954, the defendant applied and was granted letters of administration of her father's estate. After unsuccessful attempts by the plaintiff to get the said land transferred to her, she filed the writ in September 1965.

I am satisfied that the plaintiff had entered into an agreement with the beneficiaries to purchase the said land for a consideration of $500, that she had entered possession and cultivated it with padi and had since reaped the economic crops and enjoyed possession and profit without hindrance from the beneficiaries for a period of 19 years. The plaintiff had also paid the quit rents.

The legal position is that there is an ordinary contract for the sale of land which is not subject to the consideration inherent in commercial contracts. Relying on the contract the plaintiff went into occupation and did such acts as were necessary and relevant to show that she was in possession. She never got off the land. As from that time, it seems to me, that she was the equitable owner of the said land. What is required now is to clothe the equitable estate with a legal title. She therefore seeks the aid of this Court. In my opinion she is well entitled to the relief she claims. The law with regard to an agreement to sell land under an expectancy of title is discussed in my judgment in Kersah La'usin v. Sikin Menan [1966] 2 MLJ 22 and I do not think I can profitably add to what I have there said.

I now order the defendant as administratrix of her father's estate to take all relevant steps to perfect the plaintiff's title. That is why the action is brought against the defendant in her representative capacity. In my view the case is properly brought against the defendant in her representative capacity.

There is the other point raised by Counsel on behalf of the absent defendant, that is, that the action is time barred. Without going into unnecessary detail it is sufficient for me to say that the case of Williams v. Greatrex [1957] 1 WLR 31 to which reference was made in Kersah's case, is against the defendant. It was there said that where a plaintiff is in possession of an equitable estate under a contract substantially executed, so that the object of his action is to clothe himself with the legal estate, time will not run at all as this is not that species of laches which will prevail against the equitable title.

There