In their statement of claim the plaintiffs alleged that by the memoranda of transfers made between the plaintiffs and the defendant co-operative society, the defendant sold to each of the plaintiffs a piece of land for the respective consideration as follows: (1)Thanaraj a/l ManikamHS (D)LP 364/73RM1,687 Lot 11180 Mukim Durian Sebatang (2)Ramalingam a/lHS (D)LP 356/73RM1,162.50 SupramaniamLot 11172 Mukim Durian Sebatang (3)Sokiah a/l VeerappanHS (D)LP 363/73RM1,687 Lot 11179 Mukim Durian Sebatang (4)Suseala @ Ramayee a/pHS (D)LP 357/73RM1,212.50 Sangaran PillaiLot 11173 Mukim Durian Sebatang (5)Lakshamanan a/li ) HS (D)LP 365/73RMl,162 MadhavanLot 11181 Mukim Durian Sebatang ii) HS (D)LP366/73RM1,196.25 Lot 11182 Mukim Durian (6)Kasthuri VenkataswamyHS (D)LP 360/73RM3,992.50 d/o S KrishnaswamyLot 11176 Mukim Durian Sebatang

After executing the memoranda of transfers,the plaintiffs alleged that the defendant had failed to complete the sale or to deliver to the plaintiffs the title deeds and the memoranda of transfers to enable them to effect registration of land into their respective names despite their requests to do so.

It was further alleged that after executing the memoranda of transfers the defendants were merely holding the lands as bare trustees of the plaintiffs.

In the event, the plaintiffs are seeking from court:

(1) a declaration that the defendant holds the said seven properties held under the respective titles as trustee for the plantiffs;

(2) that the defendant whether by itself or by its officers or its servants or agents or other otherwise howsoever, do forthwith deliver to the respective plaintiffs or to whom they may appoint the said title deeds and memoranda of transfers of the said lands.

It would appear from the statement of defence that the dispute between the parties was not a simple case of a seller refusing to complete their obligation to sell land to the purchasers who had paid the purchase price as the plaintiffs' statement shows. The defendant's statement of defence disclosed that the plaintiffs were in fact members of the defendant co-operative society and as such were bound by the rules and regulations of the society which was registered under the Co-operative Societies Ordinance 1948 (now the CoSocieties Act 1993) ('the Act').

While denying that they had sold the respective lots of land to the plaintiffs as alleged, they pleaded in the alternative, that the purported execution of the transfer of the lots were obtained by the plaintiffs by fraud through some form of collusion with the committee members of the defendant co-operative society. The particulars in respect of each plaintiff was pleaded in para 5 of the statement of defence but for the purpose of this judgment it is not necessary for me to set out the counter allegations in detail.

A preliminary issue of law

At the commencement of hearing of this suit counsel for the defendant made an application to try a preliminary question of law under O 33 r 2 of the Rules of the High Court 1980 ('the RHC 1980') as to whether the plaintiffs' claim should not be allowed to proceed by reason that the plaintiffs, being members of the defendant co-operative society, should have acted under s 82(1) of the Act (formerly s 49(1) of the Co-operative Societies Ordinance 1948) to refer their claims to the Registrar-General of Co-operative Societies for decision.

For ease of reference I shall quote in extenso the provisions of s 82(1) of the Act which reads as follows:

82(1) If a dispute touching the constitutions, by-laws, election of officers, conduct of general meetings, management or business of a registered society arises:

(a) among members, past members and persons claiming through members, past members and deceased members;

(b) between a member, past member, or person claiming through a member, past member or deceased member, and the society, its board, or any officer of the society;

(c) between the society or its board and any officer of