Mahadev Shankar J:

This is a claim for specific performance of an agreement for the sale of land, or alternatively for rescission and consequential relief. The plaintiffs applied for summary judgment under O. 81 of the Rules of the High . After hearing arguments in open Court I gave judgment in terms to the plaintiffs. My reasons now follow.

The parties all reside in Sungei Burung Sekinchan Selangor and would appear to be neighbours. They are all concerned one way or other with paddy planting. As can be seen from the defendant's affidavit she is well aware of the close family relationship of the plaintiffs. The first plaintiff Paldraman is the husband of the second plaintiff Karupayee who has a sister Pavayee. The third plaintiff is Paldraman's nephew.

The defendant now aged 60 is the widow of one Ambunayar a/l Kanayar (deceased). It would appear that she had a son called Narainan a/l Ambunayar and another son called Krishnan a/l Ambunayar by the deceased.

The defendant was the registered proprietor of a piece of paddy land held under title H.S. (M) 3216 for Lot 10685 in the Mukim of Tg. Karang (the said Lot). She pledged this Lot to Pavayee on 24 December 1984 in return for a loan of RM12,000. As long as the loan remained unpaid Pavayee was entitled to remain in possession and harvest the paddy. The terms of the agreement are spelt out in a detailed formal written document all in Bahasa Malaysia. It was executed by the parties by the affixing of their thumbprints in the presence of Paldraman and the defendant's son. I make this point to underline the fact that the defendant, who places a great deal of emphasis on her illiteracy, was not unfamiliar with business documents and their purposes. She had previously pledged this Lot to a Chinese.

The deceased was the owner of another parcel of land held under EMR 5060 for Lots 5475 and Lot 10673 (the said parcel). He had charged this to the United Asian Bank (the bank). The plaintiffs contend that in consideration for the payment of the moneys due to the bank the defendant agreed to sell the said Lot for RM40,000.

In support of this claim they have produced a statutory declaration dated 29 July 1988 sworn by the defendant before a Tamil Commissioner for Oaths in Kuala Selangor. In this document the defendant swears she has sold the said Lot for RM40,000. This money was accounted for as follows. RM14,000 plus RM5,000 as paid to the bank, RM12,000 to be set off against the loan taken from Pavayee. The balance of RM9,000 to be paid to the bank to settle the debts of the deceased.

The plaintiffs have also produced a letter from the bank dated 22 June 1988 to confirm that they have received RM14,000 from Paldraman at the instance of the defendant's son Krishnan and another similar letter from the bank dated 28 July 1988, for the payment of RM5,000. These payments are not disputed by the defendant. Although they were paid on account of the deceased's debts the fact is that the defendant's widow is a beneficiary and the payments are referred to in the statutory declaration and lumped together with her debt to Pavayee and a further payment of RM9,000 to be made to the bank. There is another similar letter to the effect that this was paid on 24 December 1988.

Together with the statutory declaration is a written application for approval to transfer the said Lot which was a restricted title. All material particulars relating to the transfer is contained in the application with the names of the second defendant and the third defendant as transferees. The defendant states the purpose of the transfer as being to provide funds for her old age and to assist her son Krishnan to meet the expenses required to maintain her. This document also carries her thumbprint and is witnessed by the Magistrate of Kuala Selangor.

The defendant does not deny that she executed these documents. But she says that she is illiterate and claims the forms were blank when she thumbprinted them. She says that her thumbprint