Mathew CJ:

This is an appeal against a decision refusing specific performance of a contract of sale in respect of a piece of land in the town of Ipoh, Certificate of Title No. 7682 for Ut 993 N, which the first respondent sold to the appellant.

The facts in this case, with one exception ,ire identical with those in Federation Civil Appeal No. 15 Of 1952 [1953] 1 MLRA 419, [1953] MLJ 135, in which the parties to this appeal were also concerned. The judgment of this Court in that appeal is reported in [1953] MLJ p. 135. In this case the subject-matter of this appeal, the agreement for sale was made on 20 January 1948, and a caveat presented by the second and third respondents on 27 May I948. In the former case the agreement for sale was made on 30 November 1948, a caveat having been presented by the second and third respondents on 26 May 1948 and registered the following day.

Mr. Charlesworth for the appellant has argued this appeal on the assumption that the Court was correct in holding (in Civil Appeal No. 15 of 1952 [1953] 1 MLRA 419, [1953] MLJ 135) that the property in question was partnership property, and that the second, third and fourth respondents had registrable interests in the property. He relied solely on ground of appeal No. 8 which reads:

In any event, since the appellant, at the date of the agreement sued on, namely 20 January 1948, had no notice of the equitable claims of the respondents to the property and no reason for supposing that the first respondent was not the legal

and beneficial owner of the property, the appellant was entitled to be treated as a bona fide purchaser for value of the property without notice of the equity claimed by the remaining respondents.

Mr. Charlesworth's argument was based on the submission that the appellant and the second, third and fourth respondents both had equitable estates in the property. A search of the register on 20 January 1948 did hot disclose the second, third and fourth respondents' registrable interest, and therefore the appellant should be regarded as a bona fide purchaser for value of the property without notice of the equity claimed by the second, third and fourth respondents.

The short point in this appeal is whether the agreement for the sale of land made on 20 January 1948, created an estate or interest in the land which should be given priority over the second, third and fourth respondents' registrable interest. The agreement is non-registrable and does not create an interest in the land. It has value only as a contract. Whether the agreement gave the appellant an interest in the land capable of being protected by a caveat does not in my view require to be considered. The position was that the appellant had contractual rights under the agreement of 20 January and the second, third and fourth respondents had a registrable interest in the land. I can see no reason for giving effect to the purely contractual rights of the appellant by overriding the registrable interest of the second, third and fourth respondents. As was pointed out in Haji Abdul Rahman v. Mohamed Hassan [1917] AC 209, pp 216, 215; 1 FMSLR 290, pp 298, 296:

It seems to their Lordships that the learned Judges, in these observations, have been too much swayed by the doctrines of English equity, and not paid sufficient attention to the fact that they were here dealing with a totally different land law, namely, a system of registration of title contained in a codifying enactment.

I would dismiss this appeal with costs. Deposit to be paid out to respondents towards their taxed costs.

JUDGMENT

Wilson J:

I have had the opportunity of reading the judgments of the learned President and of Mr. Justice Buhagiar. I have nothing to add. I would dismiss this appeal with costs.

JUDGMENT

Buhagiar J:

We are concerned in this appeal with a piece of property held under Certificate of Title No. 7682, which the appellant agreed to buy from the first respondent. Another piece of property in contention between the same p