Jual Janji

Haji Abdul Rahman v Mohamed

Hassan

Facts of the Case

Pf Mohamed Hassan claimed against Df
Haji Mahomed Eusop (now represented by
the appellants) a pice of land in KL.
Land was sold by one Mr Keyser to Pf,
transferred to Pf.
Pf unable to discharge promissory note, Df
become surety for him and discharged PN
accordingly.

 Pf transferred land to Df and executed an

agreement
"...Mahomed Hassan is justly indebted
unto the said Haji Mahomed Eusop in the
sum of 1180 dollars, which he is unable to
pay at present; and whereas for securing
the repayment of the said sum of 1180
dollars he, the said Mahomed Hassan, has
this day transferred unto the said Haji
Mahomed Eusop his land at Batu Road in
Kuala Lumpur..."

 Condition of this agreement: If Pf was able

to repay within six months from the date
hereof, the sum of 1180 dollars, with
interest and miscellanous, the land will be
transfered back to Pf, otherwise this
agreement shall become null and void.

What happened
No payment, claim of Pf confined to asking
declaration that he was still entitled to
redeem land
Relief granted by trial judge, affirmed by
CoA
Hence this appeal

 Pf: this was A CONVEYANCE IN

SECURITY and entitled on paying the
debt to get a reconveyance of the land.
Df: It's a transfer with a conditional
contract for resale - payment not being
made on time, no obligation to
reconvey.
Df: If this was CiS, null and void [s. 4
Registration of Titles Regulation 1891]
Morever, any action founded on
agreement barred by Limitation
Enactment 1896

 Trial judge: CiS

Next point: if CiS, is it null and void in
respect of s 4 Reg of Titles Reg 1891
Transfer, mortgage, charge null and void
unless in accordance with provision of this
Regulation - relating to mortgages - only
exercisable in accordance with Part V11 s 41 - land to be made charge, must
execute charge in form in Sch. E,
registered.

 NOW: Agrmnt not in Sch. E, not

registered.
Confer no real right in the land, remained
unburdened property of Df. - s 4 has no
application
The agreement was an executory
agreement - conditional promise to
transfer
Valueless as a transfer but good as a
contract

 Agreement was executory, any action

should be brought within period of
limitation.
Issue: Contract or trust (60 years)?
Right of Pf to sue not preserved under Art
115 of Limitation Enactment