JUDGMENT

Zainun Ali J:

In this application for vacant possession under O. 89 Rules of the High Court 1980 ("RHC"), the plaintiff having countenanced the potential pitfall when purchasing the property without vacant possession, nevertheless went on ahead with the transaction.

The Facts

As far as can be discerned from the documents filed, the plaintiff as purchaser for value entered into a sale and purchase agreement dated 15 March 1996 with one Oakfield Enterprise Sdn Bhd (hereinafter referred to as "Oakfield") as vendor, to purchase all those lands held in 407 individual lots comprising an area of approximately 2,815,083 sq ft for the sum of RM32,577,452.31, free of encumbrances but without vacant possession.

The said lots were formerly held in Lot 83 Grant 72 Mukim of Plentong, District of Johor Bahru and now known as HS(D) 151079 to HS(D) 151601 for Lots PTD 64070 to PTD 64592 respectively (hereinafter referred to as the "said lands").

Upon payment of the full purchase price, the plaintiff on 2nd October 1996 became the registered proprietor of 401 of the said 407 individual lots of land namely HS(D) 151079 PTD 64070 to HS(D) 151275 PTD 64266; HS(D) 151277 PTD 64268 to HS(D) 151303 PTD 64294; HS(D) 151305 PTD 64296 to HS(D) 151325 PTD 64316; HS(D) 151327 PTD 64318 to HS(D) 151365 PTD 64356; HS(D) 151367PTD64358 to HS(D) 151385 PTD 64376; HS(D) 151387 PTD 64378 to HS(D) 151410 PTD 64401; HS(D) 151412 PTD 64403 to HS(D) 151601 PTD 64592, Mukim Plentong, Daerah Johor Bahru, Negeri Johor (hereinafter referred to as "the said 401 lots").

The said 401 lots were purchased without vacant possession.

The plaintiff made enquiries and was informed that the said 401 lots were occupied by persons unknown to the plaintiff. Upon enquiry also, it was revealed that the said 401 lots which form part of the said lands, were purchased from one Jet Age Constructions Sdn Bhd, on 28 June 1986, which had in turn purchased the same as vacant lots from the Official Receiver Malaysia on 1 April 1981.

Oakfield informed the plaintiff that after the said 401 lots were purchased by Oakfield in 1986, various unknown persons had unlawfully entered the said lots and occupied the same without the licence or consent of Oakfield.

Oakfield had obtained an order of court dated 8 November 1989 to remove the said trespassers from the said lands, and subsequently Oakfield obtained a writ of possession on 6 December 1989 in respect of the said lands but their attempt to evict the said trespassers from the said lands was unsuccessful.

This led to Oakfield applying for a committal order which was given by the court on 16 December 1991 against 134 of the named occupiers of the said lands whose execution was stayed until 31 January 1992 upon Oakfield's request. However, since the 134 named trespassers could not be identified specifically, Oakfield did not apply for a warrant for committal against them.

Apart from the said 134 trespassers, there were others in occupation of the said lands.

The plaintiff submits that neither the plaintiff nor Oakfield had given licence or consent to the defendants and thus the defendants are at law, squatters on the said 401 lots.

However, a different story emerges from the defendants. It is the defendants' contention that, the defendants were keen to purchase their respective lots and some initial discussions for this purpose were held in 1991 with Messrs Hadie Darris, an advocate and solicitor who was appointed by the defendants and other occupants of the said lands. However, no agreement was reached.

From the documents filed, there appears to be some areas of dispute as to who were actually involved in the discussions but what could be discerned is that the discussions were made at the behest of the defendants.

Oakfield appears to be a reticent negotiator who nevertheless agreed to enter negotiations, with some conditions attached, whereby inter alia, the defendants were to pay an earnest deposit of RM3,000. Some of the def