Edgar Joseph Jr J:

According to the plaintiff, Mr. Goh Hooi Yin, in July 1973, he was a customer of the First National City Bank (Penang branch), the third defendant, and so it was known to Mr. Lim Teong Ghee, the first defendant and Mr. Kung Beng Hong, the second defendant, they being the assistant manager and senior assistant manager, respectively of the third defendant, that he had recently sold his interest in a partnership business and thus had money available for investment.

Sometime in or about the first week of July 1973, at the premises of the third defendant, the first defendant suggested that the plaintiff might wish to purchase certain premises known as 53, King Street, Penang, ("the disputed property") from Weng Lye Development Sdn. Bhd., the fourth defendant, also a customer of the third defendant, whose overdraft had exceeded its limit. The first defendant added that it would be helpful to the third defendant if such a sale were to take place as it would reduce the fourth defendant's overdraft and promised to use his good offices with the fourth defendant to put through the sale to the plaintiff at a price advantageous to the plaintiff.

The plaintiff was attracted by the first defendant's proposal and promised that if the deal were to go through he would pay to the first defendant (for himself and the second defendant) a commission of RM5,000 for their efforts.

So, it was said that in or about July 1973, the plaintiff called at the third defendant's premises and enquired of the first defendant about the title and ownership of the disputed property and the latter assured the plaintiff that the title deed was lying in the vaults of the third defendant's premises having been deposited there as security for the fourth defendant's overdraft facility.

The second defendant who was present on this occasion, also assured the plaintiff that the fourth defendant was the owner of the disputed property.

The plaintiff alleged that the representations as to ownership by the first and second defendants, were made falsely with the intention of inducing him to purchase the disputed property and in breach of their duty to him.

On 9 July 1973, at the third defendant's premises, the second defendant informed the plaintiff that he had persuaded the fourth defendant to sell the disputed property to the plaintiff at a price of RM175,000 despite the fact that there was another buyer in the market at RM180,000.

The first and second defendants, it was said, well knew that the plaintiff required the disputed property for the purpose of a finance company, a motor servicing and repair garage and a Castrol oil distribution service.

Later on the same day, that is to say, on 9 July 1973 the plaintiff's solicitor Mr. Charles Ong attended at the third defendant's premises, bringing along with him a contract of sale of the disputed property, which he had prepared upon the instructions of the first defendant given on behalf of the plaintiff and which recited that the fourth defendant was the registered proprietor thereof.

In reliance upon the representations of the first and second defendants as to the title and ownership of the disputed property and being ignorant of the need to make a search of the register document of title, the plaintiff without further ado, signed the contract of sale in the presence of the solicitor Mr. Charles Ong and the first defendant. At the same time, pursuant to the contract of sale, the plaintiff paid to the fourth defendant a sum of RM17,500 as a deposit and part payment of the purchase price.

Also, at the same time and place, the fourth defendant executed the contract of sale - more particularly, one Mr. Ooi Choon Lye, a director of the fourth defendant signed on its behalf.

It was alleged by the plaintiff that the representation both in the recital to the contract of sale and by the first and the second defendants, that the fourth defendant was the owner of the disputed property was false and untrue and m