JUDGMENT

Siti Norma Yaakob J:

In these proceedings, the plaintiffs, a mother and son, seek principally to impeach the 2nd and 3rd defendants' title to a piece of property held under Grant No.10748 MLO 6445 in the Mukim of Plentong, District of Johor Bahru in the State of Johor (the property), and other consequential reliefs. To appreciate the true nature of the plaintiffs' claims, I need to go back to 1984 and trace the events affecting the parties to these proceedings.

On 7 January 1984, the plaintiffs entered into a sale and purchase agreement (the first agreement) with the 1st defendant, a housing developer, to purchase a piece of property, together with a 4 storey shophouse to be constructed on the property, at the agreed price of RM300,000. The purchase price was to be paid by the plaintiffs in instalments in the manner prescribed in the third schedule of the first agreement.

The plaintiffs paid RM160,000 to the 1st defendant and the balance of the purchase price was to be settled by a bank loan to be obtained by the plaintiffs from Bank Bumiputra Malaysia Berhad (BBMB), Kota Tinggi, Johor.

Approval for a fixed loan facility of RM140,000 was only notified by BBMB to the plaintiffs on 28 August 1994, by which time the plaintiffs had already fallen into arrears of 2 instalment due under the first agreement.

The first breach occurred on 14 February 1984, when the plaintiffs failed to respond to the 1st defendant's demand dated 31 January 1984, to remit RM68,000 being the progress payment due for the works done at that stage, i.e. for the reinforced concrete frameworks, walls, doors and window frames.

The 2nd breach occurred on 14 May, 1984, when again the plaintiffs failed to respond fully to the 1st defendant's demand dated 30 April, 1984, to remit another RM30,000 for the internal and external plastering. It was only on 22 May 1984, that the plaintiffs remitted RM38,000 but it was not sufficient to cover the arrears of instalments then due, as there was still a balance of RM60,000 still due and owing as at 22 May 1984.

By letter dated 17 July 1984, when the plaintiffs failed to pay the arrears, the 1st defendant gave them 14 days within which to pay the RM60,000 together with interests at the rate of 10% per annum for the delayed payment under clause 8 of the first agreement, failing which the 1st defendant would treat the agreement as being repudiated by the plaintiffs pursuant to clause 9(2). The agreement was duly treated by the 1st defendant as being repudiated by the plaintiffs when the latter failed to remit the arrears of instalment due by 1 August, 1984.

Three and a half months later, on 14 November, 1984, the 1st defendant entered into another sale and purchase agreement (the second agreement), this time with the 2nd and 3rd defendants, a father and son, for the sale of the same property at the same purchase price of RM300,000

When the plaintiffs became aware of the second agreement, they sued the 1st defendant in Johor Bahru Civil Suit No.308/85 (the JB suit) on 24 April 1985, seeking specific performance of the first agreement or, alternatively, damages for breach. The 2nd and 3rd defendants were not cited as parties to the JB suit but nonetheless the plaintiffs obtained an ex parte injunction in that suit, restraining them, their agents or servants, from entering into possession of the property.

Following this, the plaintiffs obtained a default order against the 1st defendant that the first agreement be specifically enforced by it. That was on 1 February 1989, well after the 1st defendant had already been compulsorily wound up by an Order of Court dated 17 August 1988, at the instance of a creditor.

On 19 December 1990, 2 years and 4 months after the 1st defendant was wound up, and without the knowledge of the Official Assignee, the property was transferred into the names of the 2nd and 3rd defendants and the plaintiffs now allege that the transfer is null and void.

The Official Assignee confirms that th