The appeal affirmed that genuine Sale and Purchase Agreements exist, rejecting claims of them being sham, and opted for damages rather than specific performance due to changed conditions.

[32] In fact, the 2nd Defendant had alleged that the letter was obtained from the 2nd Defendant by coercion or otherwise by perpetration of duress by the Plaintiff. That allegation was given a short shrift by the learned High Court Judge who found the same to be baseless and was devoid of credibility for it to be taken seriously so as to have any vitiating effect, if such was the intention. The learned High Court Judge had his reasons for arriving at such a conclusion. We found his reasons nestling in para 27 of his Grounds of Judgment like so:

"Defendan Kedua menyatakan bahawa surat tersebut dikeluarkan secara paksa tetapi penelitian Mahkamah mendapati tiada keterangan menunjukkan ke arah itu. Tambahan jika sekiranya surat tersebut dikeluarkan secara paksa atau tiada pembayaran dibuat langsung oleh pihak Plaintif, kenapa pihak Defendan Kedua tidak mengambil apa- apa tindakan untuk mempertikaikan 18 perjanjian jual beli pangsapuri ini. Tambahan, pihak Defendan Kedua boleh juga mengeluarkan satu surat untuk menafikan kandungan surat bertarikh 14 December 2005. Ketiadaan tindakan diambil oleh pihak Defendan Kedua menunjukkan bahawa sebenarnya terdapat pembayaran oleh pihak Plaintif kepada Defendan Kedua."

[33] It was noted too that there was no police report made pertaining to the alleged duress having been exercised upon the 2nd Defendant. The obvious lack of crucial contemporaneous documents emanating from the 2nd Defendant must have impacted the learned High Court Judge in the manner in which he came to make the inferences against the 2nd Defendant given the circumstances of the case before him. All these go to credibility, or rather the lack of it on the part of the 2nd Defendant's contention. They have remained bare allegations, without more. With respect, we are in agreement with the inferences that were made by the learned High Court Judge. We find them to be reasonable and justified.

[34] It also did not escape our attention that there was a last ditch attempt on the part of the 2nd Defendant to contradict the evidence of full payment for the 18 units by it calling one person by the name of Tapah anak Atah who had testified as SD3 who was a director and shareholder of Magna Glow Sdn Bhd It was the Plaintiff's case that it had made payments to Magna Glow Sdn Bhd directly so that the low cost apartments could be completed as required. He was apparently called to the stand to negate payment having been made by the Plaintiff to Magna Glow. Indeed, that was what he said during examination in chief. But during cross-examination by learned counsel for the Plaintiff, his evidence unravelled and it had come to pass that actually, SD3 spent most of his time in Sarawak and that the daily management of Magna Glow Sdn Bhd was left mostly in the hands of husband and wife combo of Low Chin Kiat and his wife.

[35] Having admitted that to be so, SD3 was then asked the ultimate question, like so: "SMJ: OK. Adakah Encik Tapah tahu terdapat bayaran daripada pihak Rumaya Properties ataupun Dato Azizi kepada Magna Glow?" And the inevitable answer, to that pointed question, coming from SD3 was, "Tapah: Tidak tahu saya." So, instead of rebutting the factum of payment having been made by the Plaintiff for the 18 units, SD3's honest but dismal answer was far from delivering such desired effect expected of him by the 2nd Defendant. SD3 did not possess the positive factual knowledge to displace the Plaintiff' case on full payment having been made for the 18 units of medium cost apartments that was Vista Damansara, let alone establishing on the balance of probabilities that there had been no full payment. The learned High Court Judge was right in his finding pertaining to the payment issue, and we do not propose to interfere with such a finding by him.

[36] It is also beyond any dispute that despite this apparent admission by the 2nd Defendant, it