GROUNDS OF DECISION

The subject matter in dispute involves a piece of land held under Mukim Grant No. GM 860, Lot 2685, Mukim Batu Buruk, in the District of Kuala Terengganu, in the State of Terengganu (hereinafter referred to as "the subject land"). The subject land is registered under the name of the first Defendant. The first Defendant obtained a housing loan from third Defendant. However, it is not known when exactly this loan was taken. As security for the said loan the first Defendant charged the subject land to the third Defendant. Though this is so, the first Defendant purportedly entered into a sale and purchase agreement intending to dispose off the subject land to the Plaintiff. A copy of the said agreement is exhibited as "IY-1" to the affidavit of the Plaintiff in support of his originating summons against the first to the third Defendants in this proceeding. It is not stated in exhibit "IY-1", however, as to when the said sale and purchase agreement was executed though in the affidavit in support of the Plaintiff it is [3] stated that the sale and purchase agreement was executed on or about 22nd December 1992. Looking at the said exhibit "IY-1", the said agreement also bears the seal and the signature of a Commissioner for Oath witnessing the signatures of the first Defendant and the Plaintiff as the vendor and purchaser respectively purportedly made on 28th January 1995 verifying that the said vendor and seller affixed their respective signature on the date above stated earlier in the said agreement but as pointed out earlier the said date was missing from the said agreement. To this it was explained in the said affidavit in support of the Plaintiff that the said Commissioner for Oath had inadvertently affixed his signature to the said sale and purchase agreement as a witness and dated it as 28th January 1995. In the circumstances, all I can say about the said purported agreement is that it is not a piece of evidence to suggest that there was in law, a subsisting agreement of sale and purchase of the subject land from the first Defendant to the Plaintiff. Be that as it may, if ever there was a contract, it was one between the Plaintiff and the first Defendant to which the third Defendant is not privy. The third Defendant on the other hand, had a contractual relationship only with the first Defendant in relation to the loan contract entered into between them wherein the Plaintiff is not privy to this loan agreement. The second Defendant, Pentadbir Tanah Kuala Terengganu, is cited in the originating summons being a person responsible in the land administration relating to the intended transfer of the subject land to the Plaintiff free from the charge arising out of the loan agreement between the first Defendant and the third Defendant. [4]

2. With that background the Plaintiff by the aforesaid originating summons applies to this court for the following orders against all the three Defendants:

"(a) Setelah Plaintif menjelaskan kepada Defendan ketiga, segala wang yang perlu dibayar di bawah pinjaman perumahan Defendan pertama dengan Defendan ketiga, Defendan ketiga memberikan kepada Plaintif atau peguamcaranya Tetuan Christie Soosay Nathan & Associates beralamat di Suite 12-01, Tingkat 12, Wisma Pahlawan, Jalan Sulaiman, 50000 Kuala Lumpur, dokumen-dokumen berikut:-

(i) Suratan Hakmilik untuk Tanah yang di pegang di bawah Geran Mukim No. GM 860, Lot 2685, Mukim Batu Buruk, Daerah Kuala Terengganu, Negeri Terengganu (selepas ini dipanggil "hartanah tersebut");

(ii) Borang Melepaskan Gadaian ditandatangani oleh Defendan ketiga iaitu melepaskan hartanah tersebut daripada Gadaian No. No. Perserahan 988/91, Jilid 3 Folio 24 (selepas ini dipanggil "Gadaian tersebut");

(iii) Gadaian Pendua tersebut;

(iv) Kesemuanya dokumen-dokumen yang lain yang adalah dalam [5] simpanan dengan Defendan ketiga berdasarkan kepada pinjaman perumahan.

(b) Defendan kedua menandatangani Borang Pindahmilik iaitu memindahmilik hartanah tersebut k