Ali FJ:

[1] This is an appeal against the dismissal of an action for specific performance of an agreement which is in the following terms:

"I, Fatimah binti Abdullah (i/c k 442506 (AS)) residing at 1¼ milestone Jalan Sungei Korok, Alor Star, made this document for the custody of Halimah binti Abdul Rahman (i/c k 015860 (KS)) residing at Langgar 2, Mukim of Langgar, Kota Star as evidence in the future.

There is a piece of Government land which I applied at the Land Office Kota Star according to LOKS (KS) 392/76 in Mukim of Kubang Rotan in area 8 relong (eight) for cultivation of padi, I, Fatimah admit to sell 'usaha saya' on the said land to Halimah binti Abdul Rahman for the sum of $300 (Dollars three hundred only). The said sum mentioned I, Fatimah admit receiving from Halimah and I have handed possession of the said land to Halimah for her to enter and cultivate. My agreement Fatimah with Halimah is that when the Government issue the documents of title on the said land then at that time, I, Fatimah undertake to transfer to the name of Halimah binti Abdul Rahman and all expenses payable at the time I, Fatimah undertake to pay."

"Both of us abovementioned have hereunto affix our respective signatures hereunder in the presence of witnesses, dated 2 March 2, 1957 (August 1, 1376).

Thumbprint of Fatimah bt Abdullah (Vendor)	Sd. Md. Isa b. Ibrahim Witness (i/c K.407850)
Thumbprint of Halimah bt Abdul Rahman (Purchaser)	Witness Sd. Jaafar bin Ilias (i/c k 178444)"

[2] Sometime in October 1967, ie about 10 years after the agreement the vendor's application was approved and she was issued with the necessary document of title. By a notice dated June, 1968 the purchaser, Halimah, asked the vendor, Fatimah, to complete theagreement which was refused. Hence the appellant's action for specific performance.

[3] It was common ground that the purchaser had paid $300 towards purchase price and that at all material times she has been in occupation of the land.

[4] The vendor, Fatimah, in answer to the purchaser's statement of claim pleaded various grounds in support of her contention that the agreement is void. In para 2 of her defence statement she pleaded uncertainty which, however, was not argued or considered at the trial. In para 3 she pleaded that since at the time of the agreement the land was State land she had no locus standi in respect of the land. In other words, the agreement is void because she had no title. This was argued at the hearing but was not considered by the learned trial judge. In any case I can see no merit in the argument in view of what is stated by SK Das in his book on the Torrens System in Malaya. On p 358 the learned author wrote:

"... If a vendor having neither a title nor the power to obtain a title contracts to sell land and subsequently before the date fixed for completion he acquires power to call for title the purchaser can force him to complete. The fact that at the date of the contract the vendor had neither title nor power to call for title is of itself no answer to a suit for specific performance by either party: Brickles v. Shell [1916] 2 AC 599."

[5] In my view s 33(a) of the Contracts Act, 1950 also answers the question. It provides:

"Contingent contracts to do or not to do anything if an uncertain future event happens cannot be enforced by law unless and until that event has happened."

[6] A clear implication of the provision is that a contract such as in the instant case is enforceable in law.

[7] In dismissing the claim the learned trial judge said in his judgment that the agreement is void because of s 24 of the Contracts Act which provides, inter alia, as follows:

"The consideration or object of an agreement is lawful, unless-

(a) it is forbidden by law;

(b) it is of such a nature that, if permitted, it would defeat any law;

(c) x x x

(d) x x x

(e) x x x"

"'... It might well be that she' (the respondent) 'was only transferring her 'usaha' but at the same time she handed possession of the land to the plaintiff who has be