JUDGMENTBY: BUTTROSE J (WITH WHOM WEE CHONG JIN CJ AND TAN AH TAH J CONCURRED)

These proceedings are concerned with dealings between the plaintiff, a finance company, and the defendant, a taxi driver, relating to a Holden motor car.

The case as presented by the pleadings was this:-- In the statement of claim the plaintiff alleged that on June 17, 1960, the defendant sold and delivered the car to the plaintiff for $ 9,000. At or about the time of the sale the defendant undertook at the direction of the plaintiff to cause the car to be transferred to and registered in the name of the plaintiff or one Lim Boon Hin to whom the car was hired out under a hire purchase agreement also dated June 17, 1960, entered into between the plaintiff and Lim Boon Hin subsequent to the sale of the car by the defendant to the plaintiff. The plaintiff delivered to the defendant on June 17, 1960, the registration card, certificate of insurance and transfer form signed by Lim Boon Hin relating to the car to enable the defendant to effect the transfer and registration of it in favour of Lim Boon Hin in pursuance of the defendants undertaking referred to above. The defendant failed and neglected to do so and refused to return the documents although requested to do so.

Lim Boon Hin having failed to carry out the terms of the hire purchase agreement the plaintiff averred that it became entitled to repossess the car under the agreement and did so on July 27, 1960. The defendant having persisted in his refusal to return the documents or to effect the transfer and registration of the car in the name of the plaintiff as requested the plaintiff sought a declaration that it was the owner of the car and required delivery up to it of all documents of title relating to the car.

In his defence and counterclaim the defendant denied that on June 17, 1960, or at any other time that he sold and delivered the car to the plaintiff for $ 9,000. He also denied all the other allegations contained in the statement of claim. He alleged that prior to June 17, 1960, he had entered into certain hire purchase agreements with the plaintiff company in respect of this same car and all monies due to the plaintiff thereon were fully paid up. It appeared that the hire purchase agreements referred to were two in number dated respectively July 2, 1959, and March 9, 1960. He further alleged that on or about June 17, 1960, the defendant entered into negotiations with Lim Boon Hin for the sale of the car to him. Lim Boon Hin in turn entered into negotiations with the plaintiff for an advance of $ 8,000 for the purchase of the car. Before completion of negotiations however a hire purchase agreement and other documents presented to him by the plaintiff were signed by Lim Boon Hin and countersigned by the defendant as guarantor in anticipation of the successful conclusion of the deal. Negotiations however were not completed and ceased and the defendant contended that no consideration passed between the plaintiff and Lim Boon Hin during the negotiations.

The defendant maintained that the car was accordingly his property and the plaintiff had no interest therein and the seizure by the plaintiff was wrongful and he counterclaimed for the return of the car and damages for its detention.

The plaintiff company in its reply admitted that all monies due to it under the two hire purchase agreements entered into with the defendant were fully paid up by him on June 17, 1960, on which day the defendant sold and delivered the car to the plaintiff.

The substantial issue raised by these pleadings was as to whether there was a valid and bona fide sale of the car by the defendant to the plaintiff on June 17, 1960.

Now it is clear on the face of the pleadings as they stand that all monies due to the plaintiff on the two hire purchase agreements entered into with the defendant to which I have referred relating to the car were fully paid up. The plaintiff company in its reply admits this. The manage