Suffian LP

(read by Ali Hassan F.J.): This is a dispute regarding the ownership of a piece of land held under E.M.R. 5087 which is in two lots, being padi land Lot 10600 and kampung land Lot 5406 in the Mukim of Tanjung Karang in the District of Kuala Selangor.

It is registered in the name of the plaintiff (appellant before us) but in the possession of the defendant (respondent before us). The plaintiff sued the defendant for a declaration that she is the registered proprietor and praying for, among other things, vacant possession. Her claim was dismissed by Haji Mohd. Azmi J. and she now appeals to us.

The facts, briefly, are as follows. The two lots were originally held under approved applications Nos. 814/50 and 79/57 under the old F.M.S. Land Code, the approved applicant being one Palaniandy son of Murugan.

In 1957, before leaving for India, Palaniandy appointed the defendant as attorney in respect of the land (see Power of Attorney No. 500/57 dated May 11, 1957, at pages 136 and 139 of the appeal record, hereinafter referred to as the first P.A.).

Five years later on or about July 9, 1962, the defendant executed an irrevocable Power of Attorney No. 739/62 authorising the plaintiff to convey the land to herself absolutely (see pages 152 to 155 of the appeal record) hereinafter referred to as the second P.A.

So on that date there were two P.As., one executed by Palaniandy in favour of the defendant and the other an irrevocable one executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff.

When Palaniandy obtained a grant of the land from the Government, it was on condition that the land was not to be transferred without the written consent of the Ruler in Council.

On or about January 6, 1967, the defendant applied to the Ruler in Council for consent to transfer the land to himself by virtue of the first P.A.

On or about August 10, 1967, the plaintiff and defendant entered into a sale agreement (Exhibit P2 at page 197) whereby the defendant agreed to sell and the plaintiff agreed to buy the land for $7,500. The agreement provided that the plaintiff was to pay the defendant $5,200 on the date of the agreement, leaving a balance of $2,300 to be paid on or before October 31, 1967.

Further the agreement expressly confirmed the second P.A. given by the defendant to the plaintiff.

Subsequent to the above agreement, on or about August 28, 1967, the plaintiff wrote to the Land Office the letter at page 190 to ask when she could obtain the document of title relating to the land.

On or about May 15, 1970, the Ruler in Council rejected the defendant's application to have the land transferred to him. The Land Office, Kuala Selangor, by letter dated May 25, 1970 (at page 164) told the plaintiff the defendant's application had been rejected by the Ruler in Council.

Subsequently on May 31, 1970, the plaintiff herself by letter (at page 163) applied to the Ruler in Council for consent to transfer the land to her. The Ruler in Council approved the plaintiff's application and subsequently on July 9, 1970, the land was registered in the plaintiff's name.

It would appear that some time in 1970 the defendant had entered into occupation of the land. He refused to vacate and the plaintiff filed against him the suit out of which this appeal arises.

In her statement of claim the plaintiff alleges that since March 1970, that is some four months before the land was registered in her name, the defendant has been a trespasser on the land. The plaintiff prays for a declaration that she is the registered proprietor of the land; for an injunction to restrain the defendant from interfering with her rights; for vacant possession; and for damages and other ancillary relief.

It would appear that she found her claim on two grounds:

(a) that her appearance on the register is valid by virtue of the two P. As.;

(b) alternatively that her appearance on the register was valid by virtue of the sale agreement (Exhibit P2).

As regards ground (a), the defendant pleads tha