JUDGMENT

George Seah FJ:

This is an appeal from a decision of the High Court at Kuala Trengganu declaring that the plaintiff/respondent is the owner of one-half of the land now known as Lot 2080, Mukim Chabang Tiga, Kuala Trengganu held under KRM 991 and ordering that the said land be so sub-divided that the respondent should retain the area he now occupies plus an additional area so as to make up his total holding to be one-half of the entire area of the said land and that the remaining area should go to the defendant/appellant and her five sons whose shares in the said land should therefore be adjusted accordingly.

At all material times the appellant was the registered owner of a parcel of land described as AMT 1, Mukim of Kuala Trengganu. It is common ground that the said land is now known as Lot 2080, Mukim Chabang Tiga, Kuala Trengganu held under KRM 991 and contains an area of 1.533 acres, more or less.

On 12 May 1954 the appellant and the respondent executed a document called "Surat Perjanjian". The signature of the appellant was witnessed by her son, Soon Hup Cheng and that of the respondent by Poh Yin Chun. Following the signing of this agreement the respondent went into occupation of the front portion of the said land facing the main road and erected a biscuit factory thereon with the knowledge and consent of the appellant. The respondent has had been in occupation of this portion of the said land ever since.

It was the case of the respondent that by the agreement of 12 May 1954 (hereinafter referred to as "the first agreement") the appellant had agreed to sell to the respondent one-half share in the said land for the sum of RM1,775 (Dollars one thousand seven hundred and seventy five only) and this amount was duly received by the appellant. The appellant's case was that the transaction was in fact a friendly loan made up of RM1,500 as principal, RM270 as agreed interest and RM5 as petition-writer's fee and that the respondent misrepresented and induced her into signing the agreement on the representation that the security for the loan should be in the form of a sale agreement. The learned Judge accepted the version related by the respondent and rightly pointed out that under the term of the first agreement the transaction was a jual putus and that the purchase price of RM1,775 was jelas or settled. There was no appeal by the appellant against the conclusion reached by the learned Judge.

Next, on 23 October 1957 the appellant and the respondent purported to execute another document (hereinafter referred to as "the second agreement") in Bahasa Malaysia and the relevant parts of the English translation certified by a Court Interpreter read as follows:

1. The First Party is the owner of a piece of land known as A.M.T. 1, Mukim of Kuala Trengganu at around Balek Bukit. On 12 May 1954 the First Party entered into an agreement with the Second Party selling half (½) share of the said land to the Second Party.

2. Whereas the Second Party is in need of the land and it was found to be too narrow to be subdivided lengthwise and therefore it is not possible for both parties to use the land to build houses. While both parties were discussing the Second Party chose the front portion near the road as the Second Party urgently needed the said portion.

3. The Second Party agree to accept the said half share of the land facing the main road with an area of thirty-three by ninety feet (90 x 33) enough to accommodate the building only and the Second Party agree to give back to the First party the back portion measuring 90 x 33 feet without any reimbursement.

4. The First Party acknowledged the renunciation of the front portion of the land measuring 90 x 33 feet to the Second Party and the acceptance of the back portion of the land measuring 90 x 33 feet.

The appellant's case was that this second agreement cancelled and replaced the first agreement and that the respondent was only entitled to an area measuring 90 x 33 feet and not to on