Page 1

Malayan Law Journal Reports/1982/Volume 2/LETCHEMY ARUMUGAN v N ANNAMALAY - [1982] 2 MLJ 198 - 2 April 1982 4 pages [1982] 2 MLJ 198

OCJ SEREMBAN WONG KIM FATT JC CIVIL SUIT NO 251 OF 1978 8 December 1981, 9 December 1981, 2 April 1982 Contract -- Sale of land -- Fraudulent misrepresentation -- Rescission -- Claim for damages and interest -Defendant counter-claiming for specific performance and damages -- Contracts Act 1950 (Revised 1974), ss 16 & 17 -- Specific Relief Act, 1950 (Revised 1974), ss 27 & 37 -- Evidence Act, 1950, s 111 -- National Land Code, 417 In this action the plaintiff, an illiterate Indian woman rubber tapper, claimed against the defendant a declaration and rescission of an agreement of sale dated January 7, 1977 and other documents executed by her, on the ground of false or fraudulent misrepresentation on the defendant's part relating to her land Lot 736, District of Port Dickson. She also claimed damages and interest. The defendant, a housing developer, denied the claim and counter-claimed for specific performance and damages. The parties listed six issues for determination by the court. 1982 2 MLJ 198 at 199 The plaintiff sought to prove that the defendant with the aid of his advocate and solicitor had taken unfair advantage of her ignorance. The defendant had fraudulently misrepresented to her that she had to sign some documents, which were in the English language, for the loan she took from him and for the discharge of charge. She executed these documents not knowing she was in fact signing a sale agreement relating to her land and three other agreements for the purchase of 3 sub-lots in her own land. The defendant, however, contended that the documents in question were properly witnessed by his solicitor who had explained them to the plaintiff. Held, allowing the claim and dismissing the counterclaim: (1) (2) (3) (4) the plaintiff had proved fraudulent misrepresentation, the truth of which the defendant did not believe in. The six issues must be answered in favour of the plaintiff; the agreement of January 7, 1977 relating to the sale of the land and the 3 agreements to the 3 sub-lots must be rescinded; the plaintiff is entitled to damages for her losses arising out of the fraudulent misrepresentation by the defendant; the defendant must not benefit from his fraudulent misrepresentation, and specific performance and damages claimed by him must be refused.

Observations on the duty of an advocate and solicitor in a transaction. Cases referred to Lloyds Bank v Bundy [1974] 3 All ER 757 765 Re Craig [1970] 2 All ER 390 393

1406. she later met him at the Seremban old market. meaning discharge of the charge. On the advice of the defendant. Port Dickson. As proof. rescission and return of purported sale agreement dated January 7. She said that she had known the defendant since he was 14 or 15 years old.It transpired that she had charged the land to him to secure a loan of which a sum of $6. and neither had she given the option to anyone to sell the land. Mukim of Linggi. (4) Whether the plaintiff gave to one Subramaniam s/o Maruthan on December 25. (6) Whether the defendant is entitled to specific performance of the alleged sale of the land in question by the plaintiff. was executed freely and voluntarily by the plaintiff. 1977 to sell the land to the defendant for $32. 1977 for $25 (Exhibit P1) which she paid to the chargee's solicitors as legal costs for . thinking that they were for the loan she took from the defendant and for discharge of the charge. WONG KIM FATT JC In this action. where he told her she must sign some documents since he was paying the money to Soo Kee. otherwise the defendant could not change the title to her sole name. 1977. She said on that day she received from the defendant $6. Mukim of Linggi. 1406.R.R.500. damages and other incidental reliefs on the ground of fraudulent misrepresentation on the part of the defendant. She said she signed some documents by her thumb print. and registered in the name of the plaintiff as proprietor. the parties had agreed in writing that there were six issues for decision as follows: "(1) Whether the document executed by the plaintiff on January 7. held under E.000.M. The issue document of title to the land was in a pawnshop because its proprietor. She did not know how to cash the cheque. she produced a receipt dated January 7.1406 for Lot 736. John Fernandez for the defendant. 1977 and other documents and the issue document of title E. lent her money. She said she did not enter into an agreement on January 7. At the commencement of the trial. whom she referred to as Soo Kee.500 was still owing at the material time. District of Port Dickson.M.100 from the defendant as referred to in paragraph 5 of the statement of claim. (5) Whether the plaintiff received the sum of $14.Doyle v Olby (Ironmongers) Ltd [1969] 2 QB 158 CA. She paid the sum of $6. The subject matter of the dispute is a piece of land Lot 736. purportedly a sale and purchase agreement in respect of land held under E. measuring 5 acres 1 rood 19 poles. she would get the title back and sell the land.M.100. She seemed to express the hope that if someone paid this sum of money.500 to Soo Kee. She went to his office. (3) Whether the said document should be declared null and void and consequently the alleged sale and purchase agreement should be rescinded. State of Negeri Sembilan ("the land")." The plaintiff at the trial gave evidence on her own behalf in Tamil. (2) Whether the defendant induced the plaintiff to execute the document referred to in (1) herein as a result of misrepresentation by the defendant to the plaintiff as alleged in paragraph 6 of the statement of claim. the plaintiff in her statement of claim claims against the defendant a declaration that any document signed by her purported to be a sale agreement in favour of the defendant to be void and not binding on her.R. After meeting the plaintiff in her house. 1976 an option for the sale of land referred to in paragraph one (1) of the statement of claim. She did not have the intention to sell the land. not $14. the defendant returned two days later with a cheque for her to pay Soo Kee to discharge the charge. [1969] 2 All ER 119 CIVIL SUIT AKJ D'Cruz for the plaintiff.

On being questioned as to why she had taken one year and four months to see her solicitors. Coelho. In his examination-in-chief.M. confirm and agree to the above. 1977 ("the agreement"). He also stated that the statutory form of transfer (Exhibit D7) and adjudication form (Exhibit D8) were also executed by the plaintiff that day in his presence and that he explained the contents of the documents to the plaintiff.As events turned out.900. On cross-examination she said she did not report the fraud to the police because she had instructed her solicitors to handle the matter after she discovered the trees were being felled. WITNESS SYARIKAT REVATHY Sd: COELHO Peguambela & Peguamcara Kuala Lumpur 25/1/77 2/3/77 Sd: N.R. 19p. The sum of $14. the sum of $14. T. her son-in-law.100. The agreement on the letter head reads as follows: "Sale and Purchase of Land held Under E. (1st Floor). who told her the title would be returned to her as soon as the discharge had been registered. More material facts were revealed through a cross-examination of Coelho.00 would be paid to me on the said land being registered in favour of Syarikat Revathy their nominee or nominees. ANNAMALAY Managing Director 7/1/77 . He testified that the agreement dated January 7. Coelho stated in evidence that present at the signing were the plaintiff. She made a police report (Exhibit P4) at Linggi on May 3. 1406 Lot 736 Mukim of Linggi. P. she lost confidence in him. She did not complain to the Bar Council because she did not know of its existence. 3059093) We Syarikat Revathy of No. and some of his employees. R.R. D10 and D12) 1982 2 MLJ 198 at 200 simultaneously with the execution of the sale agreement of January 7. he stated that he met the plaintiff in the defendant's office. The plaintiff then gave the document of title to a person sent by the defendant. N. The balance of the purchase namely $17. he frankly admitted that it was not normal to have a land transaction done on the letter head of his legal firm. The defendant called as his first and most important witness one Mr. He was satisfied that the parties understood the nature of the documents. 3059093) acknowledge receipt from Syarikat of No. It appeared that his signature on the agreement was executed in different inks and he admitted that he did not write the wrongly-spelt word 'witnes' on the left lower corner of the agreement. Letchumy d/o Arumugam (I/C No. who he said executed the three agreements relating to the three sub-lots (Exhibits D9. 1977 (Exhibit D5) was executed by the plaintiff in his presence. she replied that she trusted the defendant. Birch Road.100 was paid by the defendant partly in cash and partly by the sale of three pieces of proposed sub-lots in the same piece of land owned by the plaintiff. Seremban. (1st Floor). Seremban.M. 1978 soon after discovering that the rubber trees on the land were being felled by the defendant. the defendant. On being questioned by the court. 13. No date was typewritten on the agreement. but when she saw the trees being felled. Birch Road. 140 Lot 736 Mukim of Linggi. LETCHUMY D/O ARUMUGAM (I/C No. an advocate and solicitor who is not now practising under his own name. 1. Port Dickson comprising 5a.S. Port Dickson. 13.Page 3 discharge of the charge.00 being deposit and part payment of the purchase price of my Land held under E. the plaintiff had not been given the document of title. her daughter.

The plaintiff did not sign the option as she could not write in Tamil. Coelho then handed these documents and the issue document of title to the defendant. not on January 7. It may be noted that the adjudication form for stamp duty purposes alleged to be signed by the plaintiff was also dated December 24. The defendant had told the plaintiff to come and collect her money. had. the professional courage to write (in reply to the allegation of fraudulent misrepresentation made in the letter dated May 29. for whom he acted as solicitor. 1977. and he did not explain the danger of such a course to the plaintiff. in the following terms as the true position: "Your client with intent to defraud our client collected from him a sum of $6. after he had taken delivery of the discharge of charge and the issue document of title. He then said that the original (P14) of the agreement (D5) did not contain his signature.77".00 for the sale of the said land when she knew or ought to have known that the land in question was charged to Mr. He had no choice but to admit that if the transfer was not dated January 7. but when the original (P14) was shown to him. The relevant documents were signed between 2 and 2.e.100 was made up of $6.500 in cash and the balance the sale price of the three sublots in the land. Coelho admitted in his cross-examination that the plaintiff did not suppress the fact of the charge. I find it crystal clear that the transfer itself was stated to be executed on December 24.11/4/77". Coelho said. 1977. The plaintiff. He then prepared the transfer and the adjudication form at the defendant's office. The transfer bearing his signature as attesting witness was dated December 24. The defendant in his examination-in-chief said he had known the plaintiff for 30 years. to say the least. January 7. As an advocate and solicitor he had not maintained. He stated that on the day in question. which we hereby do. Lai Soo Kee. demanded the balance of the price three or four days after signing the .500. it could not have been signed on that date. It transpired that the agreement (D5) was a duplicate copy of the original (Exhibit P14). there was a caveat entered by the plaintiff. He also could not tell whether the agreement (D5) was signed at a later date. on the defendant's undertaking to present them for registration. that unless your client produces the title deed within seven (7) days from date hereof free from the charge and execute a memorandum of transfer in favour of our client pursuant to the agreement dated January 7. not January 7.1. which could not be effected because. To contradict himself in no uncertain terms. and she told him that she was unable to pay Soo Kee and she wanted to sell the land. 1977. as alleged by Coelho earlier. Coelho should not have rendered his professional services to his client the defendant in his scheme to acquire the land for his personal benefit regardless of the plaintiff's interest. 1977 our instructions are to apply to the court for specific performance of the contract. i. He had done so in an unsatisfactory and unbelievable way. We are now instructed by our client to give your client notice. where the plaintiff signed three documents. On cross-examination he said he was not the typist and therefore did not have the date typed. It grieves me to say that I am unable to accept the evidence of an advocate and solicitor. The sum of $14.Coelho had left his rubber stamp in his car and when 1982 2 MLJ 198 at 201 he returned with it. He had no explanation for the material contradiction in his evidence. 1978. the plaintiff had already left. 1977. he was at a total loss as to why it did not bear his signature. 1978 from the plaintiff's solicitors) to the plaintiff's solicitors a letter dated June 6. he in his letter dated June 6. The defendant said she was in a hurry and took the original (P14) of the agreement (D5) away. who then said he could not recollect what really happened. He said he wrote the date "7. which was in different ink from that used for his signature. 1978. he said. On examination of the transfer purported to be executed by the plaintiff under her thumb impression and under the hand of the defendant (both witnessed by Coelho). the discharge of charge duly executed by the chargee was handed to him. On the second day of hearing. (Exhibit P3). 1977.It is obvious that he was trying his very best to explain away the part he played and the unenviable predicament he was in. 1977. 1977. He had not received the balance of the purchase price from the defendant for the credit of the plaintiff's account. The transfer was not stamped and was never presented for registration. if I may say so euphemistically. his professional independence.30 pm. Coelho stated categorically that he was certain that the original copy of the agreement would also bear his signature as an attesting witness." The threat of action for specific performance was never carried out. The option (Exhibit D6) was written by one Alvar in Tamil. the defendant recalled Coelho.

he had the advice and services of his own solicitor. the issue document of title. 1978 the defendant's solicitors stated that the plaintiff had collected only $6. He did not present the transfer as he thought it unsafe to do so since the plaintiff was demanding payment from him.1. is unrepresented by an advocate and solicitor in a transaction and the opposite party is represented by one.All these clearly impressed me that the defendant had an uneasy mind and guilty feeling after what had transpired on January 7. She was induced to sign these documents not knowing that she was in fact signing a sale agreement relating to the land and simultaneously a purchase of three unapproved sub-lots in her very own land. It may be noted that in the letter of June 6. an old illiterate Indian woman rubber tapper aged 53.The three sub-lots were alleged to have cost her a total of $7. 1977. 1977. like the two previous defence witnesses. 1977. which she did not receive.500. This adds credibility to the plaintiff's story.. Subramaniam said that the plaintiff was in the defendant's office from 1.30 p. which were in the English language. and signed the documents between 2 and 2. He would choose to be ignorant when he sensed that what he was going to say was not favourable to the defendant. knowing that it was in his possession. To my mind it is clear from the evidence that. the plaintiff demanded payment and he thought there would be trouble. at least in the form of brokerage commission. But Coelho never said anything to that effect. Where a party. was telling a lie in stating that the plaintiff was in a hurry to go home. 1977. probably with the assistance of his solicitor Coelho. at all material times was never represented by one.77.m. not knowing that this would clearly contradict his own evidence earlier that she was in a hurry to go home. the daughter of the plaintiff. a village woman.30 p. The defendant had fraudulently misrepresented to her that she had the sign some documents. I have no hesitation to reject his evidence. As a housing developer at the age of 41. Three days after signing the agreement. rustic manner and impressed me as a witness of truth.1. in his attempt to explain why the original copy of the agreement did not have Coelho's signature. the advocate and solicitor should advise the plaintiff to be . was the registered owner of the land when in fact it was not.m. He had some interest in connection with the land.600. Where there is a conflict of interest. 1977. so that neither of the contracting parties has any unfair advantage over the other. as they were all in a cyclostyled form. The evidence of the land broker Subramaniam (DW3) did not assist the defendant in any way.Page 5 agreement. to 5 p. The defendant agreed that from January 1977 the plaintiff had been disputing the land transaction.m.76 to 10. He said the plaintiff came at 1. I may also point out that the preamble to the three agreements stated that the vendor. He had applied for one. He admitted that he altered the date in the option from 10. After observing the demeanour of this witness. as in this case. I find that the defendant is not a credible witness. while the plaintiff. The plan had not been approved by the appropriate authorities and did not appear to be prepared by a licensed surveyor. The evidence also shows or clearly implies that the defendant was in a position to dominate the will of the plaintiff for an unfair advantage for himself. not $14. it is the duty of the advocate and solicitor to explain the terms and conditions of the contract and the legal consequences thereof fully and frankly to the unrepresented party and ensure that this unrepresented party understands the terms and conditions and legal consequences fully. in making the false or fraudulent misrepresentation to the plaintiff. He did not know if the agreement (D5) was an agreement or not. She gave evidence in a straightforward. Although he was in the defendant's office the whole afternoon on the day in question he did not know what had transpired between the plaintiff and the defendant.m.m.30 p. especially an ignorant or illiterate one. The evidence shows that the defendant with the aid of his solicitor Coelho had taken unfair advantage of the ignorance of the plaintiff. He said he was calling as witness one Muniandy but not Kamachi. said the plaintiff signed all the documents in the presence of Coelho on January 7. He nevertheless gave instructions to his solicitors to demand the document of title from the plaintiff. There was a private caveat registered against the land. and he said the three agreements on the sub-lots were prepared on the same day. the firm of the defendant. each with a proposed sub-divisional plan annexed. He.100. He said the plaintiff's daughter signed the option in his favour on behalf of the plaintiff. His evidence confirms that the defendant. the defendant did not believe in its truth. She had sought legal assistance and also the help of an Indian State Assemblyman. He also said she left at 5 p. He instructed Coelho to date the transfer on December 24. transfer and discharge of charge were in the custody of his solicitor. He was very certain that on January 7. These three agreements must have been prepared by the defendant much earlier than January 7. the defendant said he was a housing developer but had no licence. for the loan she took from the defendant and in order to get the land freed from the charge. Under cross-examination.

The plaintiff said that the rubber trees on about half of the land were felled while the defendant said all the rubber trees on the land (about 5½ acres in area) were felled. When she gave evidence on special damages. totalling $ 1. I now come to the question of damages which the plaintiff is entitled to receive arising from the defendant's fraudulent misrepresentation (see Doyle v Olby (Ironmongers) Ltd [1969] 2 QB 158 CA. Mukim of Linggi. Meneces v Middleton [1970] 2 All ER 390 at 393. honestly.M. But as the plaintiff received no benefit thereunder. based on the evidence and my finding of fact: (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) The document purporting to be a sale and purchase agreement relating to Lot 736 held under E. award special damages to the plaintiff as follows: $900 for the house. learned counsel for the defendant did not object to or challenge the several relatively small quantified items of special damages arising directly from the felling of the rubber trees by the defendant. He should never abuse his special position and the confidence reposed in him if he is not maintain the public respect for and confidence in the legal profession. I assess the approximate value of the rubber trees felled at $2. however. The agreement must be rescinded. said the price of the land was $ 18. Both learned counsel inadvertently omitted in their written submissions to submit on the guidelines or principles the court should adopt in the assessment of damages. She had also lost her monthly income of about $ 200. Whatever measure of damages the court applies.000 is fair and reasonable in the circumstances of this case. 1950 (Revised 1974). I find as a fact that the plaintiff was induced by undue influence on the part of the defendant to sign the agreement of January 7.360. The plaintiff did not plead special damages in her statement of claim.R 1406. The plaintiff also said she was earning some $ 200 per month tapping the rubber trees on the land. and bearing in mind that she will retain possession of the land free from encumbrances at its present enhanced value owing to a rise in price in the real property market. 393 on undue influence. and Re Craig (Deceased). [1969] 2 All ER 119. She would not have suffered these losses if the fraudulent misrepresentation had not been made. after making some deduction in respect of the bicycle. Neither party had produced any valuation report on the land. At the same time the defendant is not obliged to pay her damages as she did not prove she had suffered anything thereunder. $ 150 for the bicycle. The defendant. 765. I think its duty is to award damages or compensation as fairly and justly as possible as between the parties based on the evidence before it. (See Lloyds Bank v Bundy [1974] 3 All ER 757 at 765. That was the evidence adduced to prove damages by the plaintiff.500 per acre. Section 16(1) of the Contracts Act. The agreement is voidable at the option of the plaintiff and as a necessary consequence must be rescinded. and she stopped tapping after the trees were felled. $200 for the rubber mangles. The advocate and solicitor must at all times maintain his professional ethics. 1950. No. all relevant factors such as the rubber trees were felled and the plaintiff had stopped tapping must be considered. The defendant said he felled all the rubber trees on the land at a cost of $ 1.800. taking into account virtually the damage caused to the rubber trees and the loss of her small income. integrity and independence. Neither had he discharged his burden of proving the good faith of the transaction under section 111 of the Evidence Act. 1950 (Revised 1974) defines "undue influence" and section 17 defines "fraud". Yes. Port Dickson.As to general damages in respect of the agreement of January 7. No. was not executed freely and voluntarily by the plaintiff. Damage caused to these items of property was stated in her police report without stating the values. $ 110 for the cupboard and table. These losses must be made good. I find as a fact that about three acres of rubber trees were felled. As regards the three agreements relating to the three sub-lots they must also be rescinded. I therefore. .000 per acre before the issue of individual subdivisional titles. The plaintiff did not give the option.) He had failed to prove that these agreements were not induced by undue influence under section 16(3) of the Contracts Act. The rubber trees must be old as the yield per month was not high in terms of income.separtely represented. 1977 and the three agreements for the purchase of the three sub-lots. no compensation or refund need be made by her to the defendant under section 37 of the Specific Relief Act. 1977. 1982 2 MLJ 198 at 202 I now give my answers to the six issues. I therefore think that an award of damages against the defendants in the sum of $ 10.

000 will run from date of judgment to realization. Folio 61. There will be judgment against the defendant in favour of the plaintiff for the sums of $1. Interest on the sum of $ 1. entered by the defendant on January 24. In the present case since the plaintiff had proved fraudulent misrepresentation.Page 7 The jurisdiction of the court to order specific performance of a contract is discretionary. Order accordingly. The plaintiff must refund the sum of $6. I direct the Collector of Land Revenue. 1406. I order the rescission of the agreement (D5) and the three agreements (D9. These four agreements.360 will run from date of filing suit to date of judgment at 4% per annum and thereafter at 8% per annum till realization. and the transfer must be returned to the plaintiff for cancellation within one month from today.R.000 with costs. and issue document of title E. Interest at 8% per annum on the sum of $10. District of Port Dickson.360 and $10. The defendant should not be allowed to benefit from his misrepresentation. specific performance cannot be enforced in favour of the defendant under the provisions of section 27(b) of the Specific Relief Act. 1981 under section 417 of the National Land Code . Fernandez & Co .500 to the defendant.M. to be set off against the account of damages payable by him. Solicitor: AKJ' D'Cruz & Co. The counterclaim is therefore dismissed with costs. to remove the private caveat Volume 6. D10 and D12).

SS 16 & 17 . Daerah Port Dickson.salah nyataan Penipuan . 1950. 2 April 1982 Kontrak . bagi pinjaman dia mengambil dari dia dan bagi menunaikan bertanggungjawab.Pemansuhan . 1950 (Pindaan 1974). menafikan Tuntutan dan kaunter-dituntut untuk prestasi dan ganti rugi tertentu. s 111 Kanun Tanah Negara. mendakwa terhadap Deklarasi dan defendan pembatalan perjanjian yang jualan bertarikh Januari 7. .Translation in malay from google: Malayan Law Journal Reports/1982/Volume 2/LETCHEMY ARUMUGAN ANNAMALAY v N [1982] 2 MLJ 198 . SS 27 & 37 . Beliau juga menuntut ganti rugi dan faedah. defendan menegaskan bahawa dokumen dalam soalan disaksikan oleh Peguamcara yang telah dijelaskan mereka kepada plaintif.Tuntutan ganti rugi dan faedah Defendan kaunter menuntut prestasi ganti rugi dan khusus . 1982 2 MLJ 198 di 199 Plaintif cuba membuktikan bahawa defendan dengan bantuan Peguambela dan Peguamcara beliau telah mengambil kesempatan yang tidak adil kejahilan beliau.Akta Keterangan. Pihak-Pihak menyenaraikan enam isu-isu untuk penentuan oleh Mahkamah. 417 Dalam tindakan ini yang plaintif. Defendan telah secara fraud salah nyata kepadanya bahawa dia terpaksa menandatangani beberapa dokumen.Akta Relif Spesifik . yang dalam bahasa Inggeris. tahun 1977 dan Lainlain dokumen yang disempurnakan oleh beliau. 9 Disember 1981. yang wanita buta huruf India getah penoreh.Jualan Tanah . Beliau menyempurnakan dokumen-dokumen ini TIDAK mengetahui dia sebenarnya yang menandatangani perjanjian jualan yang berhubungan dengan tanah dan tiga perjanjian lain untuk Pembelian 3 sub-lot tanah sendiri. LETCHEMY ARUMUGAN v N ANNAMALAY OCJ SEREMBAN Wong Kim FATT JC Awam ini berlanjutan NO 251 MENGENAI tahun 1978 8 Disember 1981. Bagaimanapun.Akta Kontrak 1950 (Disemak 1974).2 April 1982 4 halaman [1982] 2 MLJ 198. pemaju perumahan. di atas tanah yang salah nyataan palsu atau penipuan di Bahagian defendan berkaitan dengan Lot Tanah 736. Defendan.

[1969] 2 All ER 119 Awam terus Akj D'Cruz bagi plaintif. Daerah Port Dickson. Mukim Linggi. kerosakan sampingan dan relif lain atas alasan salah nyataan penipuan di pihak defendan. (4) defendan TIDAK mesti Manfaat dari salah nyata penipuan. John Fernandez untuk defendan. (3) plaintif Untitled ganti rugi untuk kerugian yang timbul daripada salah nyata penipuan oleh defendan. Pemerhatian ke atas kewajipan Peguambela dan Peguamcara dalam Transaksi. Negeri Sembilan Negeri ("Tanah"). plaintif dalam Penyata Tuntutan Tuntutan Terhadap Deklarasi defendan bahawa apa-apa dokumen yang ditandatangani oleh kononnya beliau untuk menjadi perjanjian penjualan di atas nama defendan sebagai TIDAK SAH dan TIDAK Binding pada dirinya. telah dilaksanakan secara bebas dan secara sukarela oleh plaintif . Mengukur 5 ekar 1 Rood 19 tiang. Mukim Linggi. Wong Kim FATT JC Dalam tindakan ini. Port Dickson. 1977. kononnya jualan dan Perjanjian Pembelian Tanah di bawah EMR1406 Lot 736. pihak-pihak telah bersetuju secara bertulis bahawa terdapat enam isu untuk keputusan seperti berikut: "(1) sama ada dokumen yang disempurnakan oleh plaintif pada 7 Januari. kebenaran yang defendan TIDAK Percaya Dalam. dan didaftarkan di atas nama plaintif sebagai tuan punya. 1977 dan dokumen lain dan dokumen terbitan hakmilik EMR 1406. menolak tuntutan balas itu dan Halloween Tuntutan: (1) plaintif telah dibuktikan salah nyataan palsu. Hal perkara pertikaian itu adalah sekeping Lot Tanah 736. 1977 berkaitan dengan penjualan tanah dan perjanjian untuk 3 3 sub-banyak mesti dihapuskan. Pada permulaan perbicaraan. pembatalan dan pulangan perjanjian jualan dikatakan bertarikh 7 Januari.Page 9 Diadakan. di bawah EMR 1406. Olby (Ironmongers) Sdn Bhd [1969] 2 QB 158 CA. (2) perjanjian Januari 7. Enam isu yang perlu dijawab dalam memihak kepada plaintif. dan pelaksanaan spesifik dan ganti rugi yang dituntut oleh beliau mesti ditolak. (3) sama ada dokumen tersebut harus diisytiharkan batal dan TIDAK SAH dan seterusnya penjualan . Kes yang dirujuk kepada Lloyds Bank v Bundy [1974] 3 Semua ER 757 765 Re Craig [1970] 2 All ER 390 393 Doyle v. (2) sama ada defendan mendorong plaintif untuk melaksanakan dokumen yang disebut dalam (1) di sini sebagai hasil daripada salah nyataan oleh defendan kepada plaintif seperti yang dikatakan dalam perenggan 6 Pernyataan Tuntutan.

1976. bahawa dia telah dipinjamkan berpeluh money. tetapi apabila dia melihat pokokpokok ditebang. Selepas mengadakan pertemuan dengan plaintif di rumahnya. sebaliknya defendan TIDAK boleh mengubah tajuk kepada nama tunggal. Beliau berkata dia TIDAK memasuki Perjanjian pada 7 Januari. plaintif telah TIDAK diberi dokumen hakmilik . 1977 untuk menjual tanah itu kepada defendan untuk $ 32. (6) sama ada defendan Untitled pelaksanaan spesifik dakwaan jualan tanah dalam soalan oleh plaintif. beliau menyatakan bahawa beliau meletakkan plaintif di pejabat defendan. dia menghasilkan Resit bertarikh 7 Januari. (5) sama ada plaintif menerima wang sebanyak $ 14. dia akan mendapat gelaran itu kembali dan menjual tanah. Beliau seolah-olah untuk melahirkan harapan bahawa jika seseorang telah DIBAYAR ini sejumlah wang. Dia DIBAYAR sejumlah $ 6. Dia TIDAK mempunyai niat untuk menjual tanah tersebut.100. yang memberitahu dia gelaran itu akan dikembalikan kepadanya dengan seberapa segera yang menjalankan telah acara registered. Sebagai bukti.As ternyata. Coelho. Dia pergi ke pejabatnya.It beliau Dikongsi tanah kepadanya untuk Secure pinjaman yang mana wang sebanyak $ 6.500. Beliau berkata bahawa dia telah dikenali defendan sejak dia berumur 14 atau 15 tahun. Dokumen isu hak milik tanah di kedai pajak gadai kerana tuan punya. Beliau berkata pada hari itu dia diterima daripada defendan $ 6. Plaintif kemudian memberikan dokumen hakmilik kepada orang-orang yang dihantar oleh defendan. Dia TIDAK membuat aduan kepada Majlis Peguam kerana dia TIDAK tahu kewujudannya. Beliau berkata beliau telah menandatangani beberapa dokumen oleh Cetak Thumb itu. (4) sama ada plaintif memberikan satu Subramaniam s / o Maruthan on December 25. Defendan yang dipanggil sebagai yang pertama dan yang paling penting satu Encik Saksi. Nasihat defendan.000. Beliau memberi keterangan bahawa Perjanjian bertarikh 7 Januari. memikirkan bahawa mereka adalah untuk pinjaman dia mengambil daripada defendan dan untuk pelepasan gadaian ke. dia mesti menandatangani beberapa dokumen sejak beliau telah membayar wang untuk Soo Kee. Dalam beliau Peperiksaan Ketua. Pada Cross-Peperiksaan Beliau berkata beliau TIDAK melaporkan Penipuan kepada polis kerana dia telah mengarahkan peguam rendelet perkara itu selepas dia Temui pokok-pokok telah ditebang. Beliau membuat laporan polis (Carta P4) di Linggi pada 3 Mei. yang disebut sebagai Soo Kee. dan tidak pernah dia diberi pilihan kepada sesiapa sahaja untuk menjual tanah. di mana beliau memberitahu.500 Soo Kee.100 daripada defendan seperti yang disebut dalam perenggan 5 Pernyataan Tuntutan. Apabila disoal tentang mengapa dia telah mengambil satu tahun dan empat bulan untuk melihat peguam itu.500 masih terhutang pada masa yang material.yang dikatakan dan Perjanjian Pembelian perlu ditamatkan. Dia TIDAK tahu bagaimana untuk menunaikan cek. Jumlah sebanyak $ 14. 1978 tidak lama lagi selepas Discovering bahawa pokok-pokok getah di atas tanah yang telah ditebang oleh defendan. defendan kembali dua hari kemudian dengan cek dia untuk membayar Soo Kee untuk melepaskan pertuduhan itu. yang bermaksud pelepasan gadaian ke.100 telah DIBAYAR oleh defendan Kebanyakannya di Tunai dan Sebahagian oleh jualan 3 keping Cadangan sub-banyak dalam . beliau kemudian meletakkan beliau di Pasar Lama Seremban. beliau menjawab bahawa dia dipercayai defendan. 1977 (Carta D5) telah disempurnakan oleh plaintif di hadapan beliau. TIDAK $ 14. 1977 $ 25 (Carta P1) yang dia DIBAYAR kepada peguam caj sebagai kos undang-undang untuk pelepasan gadaian ke. dia kehilangan keyakinan di dalam dirinya. Peguambela dan Peguamcara yang kini TIDAK menjalankan amalan di bawah namanya sendiri. " Plaintif pada perbicaraan itu memberikan keterangan bagi pihak sendiri dalam bahasa Tamil. pilihan untuk penjualan tanah yang disebut dalam perenggan satu (1) Penyata Tuntutan.

Saksi SYARIKAT REVATHY SD: SD: Coelho N. LETCHUMY D / O ARUMUGAM (I / C No. 19p. Termasyhur bahawa Perjanjian IT (D5) Salinan Pendua (Carta P14) asal. Birch Road. 3059093) mengakui Resit dari Syarikat daripada Apt. Ia kelihatan bahawa tandatangan di atas perjanjian yang telah dilaksanakan dalam dakwat yang berbeza dan dia mengakui bahawa dia TIDAK menulis perkataan salah-dieja "witnes 'di sudut bawah kiri Perjanjian. sejumlah $ 14. 13. Apabila disoal oleh Mahkamah. 140 Lot 736 Mukim Linggi. (Tingkat 1). Seremban.S.00 Deposit menjadi dan pembayaran sebahagian daripada Harga Pembelian Tanah di bawah EMR Saya 1406 Lot 736 Mukim Linggi. Beliau juga TIDAK dapat memberitahu sama ada Perjanjian (D5) telah ditandatangani pada satu tarikh kemudian. Beliau juga menyatakan bahawa Borang Berkanun pemindahan (Carta D7) dan Borang pengadilan (Carta D8) juga telah disempurnakan oleh plaintif pada hari itu di hadapan beliau dan beliau menjelaskan kandungan dokumen kepada plaintif. Port Dickson. Dia menyatakan bahawa pada hari yang berkenaan. beliau adalah pada jumlah kerugian mengapa ia tidak TIDAK menanggung tandatangan. Seremban. 1977 ("Perjanjian"). defendan. 13. pelepasan gadaian diberi . Coelho yang dinyatakan dalam bukti yang hadir pada majlis menandatangani perjanjian berkenaan plaintif. Coelho dinyatakan secara mutlak bahawa dia pasti bahawa salinan asal perjanjian itu juga akan menanggung tandatangan sebagai membuktikan Saksi. beliau terus terang mengakui bahawa ia TIDAK adalah perkara biasa untuk mempunyai data Transaksi Tanah di kepala surat firma guaman. 1. Beliau berpuas hati bahawa pihak-pihak memahami Jenis Dokumen.M.R.100.00 akan DIBAYAR kepada saya ke atas tanah yang didaftarkan di atas nama Syarikat Revathy penama atau penama mereka. dan beberapa Pekerja. iaitu Januari 7. ANNAMALAY Peguambela Peguamcara & Pengarah Urusan Kuala Lumpur 7/1/77 25/1/77 2/3/77 11/4/77 ". Baki Pembelian iaitu $ 17. anak perempuannya. Birch Road. mengesahkan dan bersetuju kepada perkara di atas. Letchumy / o Arumugam (I / C No. D10 dan D12) 1982 2 MLJ 198 pada 200 serentak dengan pelaksanaan perjanjian jual Januari 7. R.Page 11 sekeping yang sama tanah yang dimiliki oleh plaintif itu. 3059093) Kami Syarikat No Revathy. Perjanjian pada Ketua Surat berbunyi seperti berikut: "Jual Beli Tanah Di bawah E. T. (Tingkat 1). 1977. Port Dickson yang terdiri daripada 5a. Tarikh No. N. tetapi apabila dokumen asal (P14) telah ditunjukkan kepadanya. P. Lebih banyak bahan Fakta Dinyatakan melalui Peperiksaan Palang-Coelho.900. anak dalam undang-undang itu. Ditaip atas perjanjian itu. yang beliau berkata dilaksanakan di 3 perjanjian yang berhubungan dengan itu 3 sub-lot (Exhibits D9.

yang adalah dengan dakwat yang berbeza dari yang digunakan untuk tandatangan. dan dia TIDAK Terangkan bahaya kursus kepada plaintif.500.00 untuk jualan yang berkata tanah apabila dia tahu atau patut untuk telah diketahui bahawa tanah yang berkenaan telah Dikongsi MR. 1977. Pada Cross-Peperiksaan. beliau telah TIDAK dikekalkan. Beliau berkata beliau menulis tarikh "7. . yang TIDAK boleh akan dilaksanakan defendan kerana. itu melainkan jika Pengeluar klien anda Surat ikatan hak milik dalam tempoh tujuh (7) hari dari tarikh ini bebas daripada gadaian itu dan melaksanakan memorandum pemindahan memihak Pelanggan Kami menurut Perjanjian bertarikh Januari 7. Ia boleh diperhatikan bahawa bentuk pengadilan bagi tujuan duti setem yang dikatakan telah ditandatangani oleh plaintif juga bertarikh 24 Disember. jika boleh saya berkata demikian euphemistically. Coelho mengakui dalam Peperiksaan Cross-plaintif TIDAK menyekat fakta pertuduhan itu. mencatatkan 7 Januari. beliau dalam surat bertarikh 6 Jun. selepas dia telah mengambil penghantaran caj dan pelepasan dokumen hakmilik keluaran. 1977. untuk siapa dia bertindak sebagai Peguam. ia TIDAK boleh telah ditandatangani pada tarikh tersebut. No Beliau tidak mempunyai pilihan tetapi untuk mengakui bahawa jika pemindahan TIDAK bertarikh 7 Januari. yang kemudian berkata dia TIDAK dapat memusatkan apa yang sebenarnya berlaku. 1978.77". Sebagai Peguambela dan Peguamcara. seperti yang didakwa oleh Coelho awal. 1977. saya mendapati ia jernih bahawa pemindahan itu sendiri telah menyatakan akan dilaksanakan pada 24 Disember. 1977 NOTA pada 7 Januari. Pemindahan ini TIDAK dicop dan tidak pernah Dicetak untuk pendaftaran. pada aku janji untuk membentangkan mereka untuk pendaftaran. defendan teringat Coelho. terdapat adalah kaveat masuk oleh plaintif . Ia menyakitkan hati saya mengatakan bahawa saya tidak dapat menerima bukti Peguambela dan Peguamcara. 1977. " Ancaman tindakan bagi pelaksanaan spesifik tidak pernah dijalankan. plaintif telah menandatangani tiga dokumen. yang kami dengan ini. Coelho berkata. Bagi Peperiksaan pemindahan berupa sebagai disempurnakan oleh plaintif di bawah tanggapan Thumb dan ditandatangani oleh defendan (kedua-duanya disaksikan oleh Coelho). berkata kurangnya.disempurnakan oleh pertuduhan itu telah diserahkan kepadanya. Kami yang kini diarahkan oleh Pelanggan Pelanggan kami untuk memberi notis anda. 1977. Kepada dirinya sendiri dari segi percanggahan No. Beliau mempunyai penjelasan No. Coelho TIDAK perlu mempunyai Reynders Perkhidmatan Profesional beliau kepada pelanggan defendan dalam skim untuk mengambilalih tanah untuk Faedah peribadi tanpa mengambil kira kepentingan plaintif. Beliau kemudian berkata bahawa asal (P14) Perjanjian (D5) TIDAK mengira tandatangannya. telah. beliau berkata beliau TIDAK adalah jurutaip dan oleh itu TIDAK mempunyai tarikh ditaip.It adalah jelas bahawa beliau telah cuba yang terbaik untuk menanam bahagian beliau bermain dan situasi yang tak menimbulkan iri hati beliau dalam. keberanian Profesional untuk menulis ( dalam jawapan kepada dakwaan salah nyataan penipuan yang dibuat dalam surat yang bertarikh 29 MEI 1978 daripada peguam plaintif) kepada peguam plaintif surat bertarikh 6 Jun. TIDAK beliau telah menerima baki Harga Belian dari defendan untuk kredit akaun plaintif. Yang tidak menentu.1. Coelho kemudian menyerahkan-dokumen dan yang dokumen isu hakmilik kepada defendan. Lai Soo Kee. Pemindahan yang mengandungi tandatangan sebagai Saksi membuktikan bertarikh 24 Disember. Pada hari kedua pendengaran. Beliau kemudiannya menyediakan pemindahan dan borang pengadilan di pejabat defendan. terma berikut sebagai Kedudukan Sebenar: "Pelanggan anda dengan niat untuk menipu Klien kami dikumpulkan dari jumlah $ 6. Beliau terpaksa melompat dalam data dan Langkah Ajaib yang tidak memuaskan. (Carta P3). 1978. 1977 Arahan kami adalah untuk memohon kepada Mahkamah untuk mendapatkan pelaksanaan spesifik Kontrak. Untuk percanggahan bahan dalam keterangannya.

1.30 petang. Beliau berkata plaintif datang pada jam 1. sekurang-kurangnya dalam bentuk Suruhanjaya pembrokeran. Dia. Tiga hari selepas menandatangani perjanjian itu. 1977. dalam cubaan untuk Terangkan Mengapa itu salinan asal perjanjian itu tidak TIDAK mempunyai tandatangan Coelho. Dia sangat pasti bahawa pada 7 Januari. nota mengetahui bahawa ini akan jelas percanggahan bukti sendiri dahulu bahawa dia adalah dalam CEPAT untuk pulang ke rumah. 1977. Walaupun dia berada di pejabat petang seluruh defendan pada hari yang berkenaan itu. defendan berkata beliau adalah seorang pemaju perumahan tetapi mempunyai Lesen No.Page 13 Kemerdekaan Profesional. kata plaintif telah menandatangani semua dokumen dalam kehadiran Coelho pada 7 Januari. Dia akan Pilih untuk menjadi jahil apabila dia merasakan bahawa apa yang beliau akan katakan TIDAK memihak kepada defendan. Terdapat kaveat persendirian yang didaftarkan atas tanah. dan beliau berkata tiga perjanjian di lot kecil telah disediakan pada hari yang sama. plaintif menuntut pembayaran dan dia fikir akan ada masalah. beliau berkata. Saya mendapati bahawa defendan TIDAK Saksi yang boleh dipercayai. Di bawah Cross-Peperiksaan.500 dalam bentuk wang tunai dan baki harga jualan tiga sub-banyak di muka bumi. dan pelepasan gadaian dalam jagaan Peguamcara beliau. menuntut baki harga tiga atau empat hari selepas menandatangani perjanjian itu.All ini jelas menarik perhatian saya bahawa defendan mempunyai Minda gelisah dan Rasa bersalah selepas apa yang peluh pada 7 Januari. Beliau mempunyai beberapa kepentingan yang Berkaitan dengan tanah itu. seperti dua saksi pembelaan sebelumnya. Selepas memerhatikan tingkah laku Saksi ini.77.30 petang Beliau juga berkata dia ditinggalkan di 5 petang.30 petang dan dokumen-dokumen yang ditandatangani antara 2 dan 2. Plaintif TIDAK menandatangani opsyen seperti dia TIDAK boleh menulis dalam bahasa Tamil.76 hingga 10. Beliau mengakui bahawa dia mengubah tarikh dalam pilihan dari 10.1. 1977. Defendan dalam beliau Peperiksaan Ketua berkata beliau telah dikenali plaintif selama 30 tahun. Keterangan Tanah Broker Subramaniam (DW3) TIDAK MEMBANTU defendan dalam apa jua cara. beliau telah memberitahu satu pembohongan dalam statin plaintif adalah dalam CEPAT untuk pulang ke rumah. Subramaniam berkata bahawa plaintif adalah dalam pejabat 13:30-05:00 keterangannya mengesahkan defendan bahawa defendan. Pilihan-pilihan (Carta D6) telah ditulis oleh seorang Alvar dalam bahasa Tamil. plaintif telah mempertikaikan Urusniaga Tanah. Beliau berkata beliau telah memanggil sebagai Muniandy Saksi Satu tetapi TIDAK Kamachi. Beliau TIDAK tahu sama ada Perjanjian (D5) adalah di dalam perjanjian atau nota. Defendan memberitahu plaintif untuk datang dan mengambil wang itu. Defendan berkata beliau dalam CEPAT 1 dan mengambil asal (P14) Perjanjian (D5) away. Dia telah DIPOHON satu. Dokumen yang berkaitan telah ditandatangani di antara 2 dan 2. anak perempuan plaintif. saya mempunyai No. 1977. Beliau telah meminta bantuan undang-undang dan juga bantuan daripada Ahli Dewan Undangan Negeri India. Jumlah $ 14. Beliau mengarahkan Coelho dating pemindahan pada 24 Disember. dia TIDAK tahu apa yang termasyhur antara plaintif dan defendan. Defendan bersetuju bahawa dari Januari 1977. Beliau bagaimanapun memberi Arahan kepada peguam caranya untuk menuntut dokumen hakmilik daripada plaintif. dengan mengetahui bahawa ia adalah dalam miliknya. dan dia memberitahu bahawa dia tidak dapat membayar Soo Kee dan dia mahu menjual tanah. Plaintif itu. Teragak-agak untuk menolak keterangannya. dokumen isu pemindahan hakmilik.100 telah dibuat sebanyak $ 6. plaintif telah meninggalkan. . Tetapi Coelho tidak pernah berkata apa-apa bagi maksud itu. Beliau berkata anak perempuan plaintif menandatangani pilihan yang memihak kepada beliau bagi pihak plaintif. Beliau TIDAK membentangkan pemindahan itu kerana dia menyangka itu tidak selamat untuk berbuat demikian sejak plaintif menuntut pembayaran dari him.Coelho telah meninggalkan setem getah di keretanya dan apabila 1982 2 MLJ 198 di 201 beliau kembali dengan itu.

Meneces v Middleton [1970] 2 All ER 390 pada 393. integriti dan Kemerdekaan. 1978 peguamcara defendan menyatakan bahawa plaintif telah dikutip hanya $ 6500. 765. ia adalah jelas daripada bukti-bukti bahawa. terutamanya yang jahil atau buta huruf. Mungkin saya juga menunjukkan bahawa Mukadimah kepada tiga perjanjian yang menyatakan bahawa Penjual. Peguambela dan Peguamcara Penasihat separtely plaintif yang diwakili. Sebagai pemaju perumahan pada umur 41. Perjanjian itu adalah terbatal pada pilihan plaintif dan sebagai akibat yang perlu mesti ditamatkan. diwakili oleh Peguambela dan Peguamcara dalam Transaksi dan pihak lawan yang diwakili oleh satu. yang dia melakukan NOTA Terima. pada setiap masa yang material tidak pernah diwakili oleh satu. supaya tidak Pihak Berjanji mempunyai apa-apa kelebihan yang tidak adil ke atas yang lain. ia adalah kewajipan Peguambela dan Peguamcara Menanamkan Terma dan Syarat Kontrak dan Akibat undang-undang itu sepenuhnya dan terus terang kepada yang tidak diwakili peguam parti dan memastikan bahawa ini tidak diwakili peguam parti memahami Terma dan Syarat dan Akibat Undang-undang sepenuhnya. 1950. desa dan menarik perhatian saya sebagai saksi yang benar. Keterangan itu juga jelas menunjukkan atau membayangkan bahawa defendan adalah dalam kedudukan untuk Domina kehendaki plaintif untuk kelebihan yang tidak adil untuk dirinya sendiri. Rancangan itu telah TIDAK diluluskan oleh pihak berkuasa yang berkenaan dan TIDAK muncul akan disediakan oleh Juruukur Berlesen.600. 393 pada pengaruh tidak wajar. Saya mendapati sebagai fakta bahawa plaintif telah didorong oleh pengaruh tidak wajar di pihak defendan untuk menandatangani Perjanjian Januari 7. 1950 (Pindaan 1974) mentakrifkan "pengaruh tidak wajar" dan Seksyen 17 mentakrifkan "penipuan". seorang wanita kampung. kerana mereka semua dalam bentuk cyclostyled. Dia memberikan keterangan dalam cara yang jelas. nota $ 14.Bukti-bukti menunjukkan bahawa defendan dengan bantuan Coelho Peguamcara beliau telah mengambil kesempatan yang tidak adil kejahilan plaintif. Jika Parti. Ia boleh diperhatikan dalam surat 6 Jun. manakala plaintif.The tiga sub-lot yang dikatakan telah menelan belanja sejumlah $ 7. 1977. Ketiga-tiga perjanjian mesti telah disediakan oleh defendan lebih awal daripada Januari 7. Defendan telah secara fraud salah nyata kepadanya bahawa dia mempunyai tanda beberapa dokumen. Baik sekiranya dia dilepaskan Beban Membuktikan Iman Baik Transaksi di bawah Seksyen 111 Akta Keterangan. yang dalam bahasa Inggeris. Ini menambah kredibiliti kepada cerita plaintif.) Beliau telah gagal untuk membuktikan bahawa perjanjian-perjanjian ini TIDAK disebabkan oleh pengaruh tidak wajar di bawah Seksyen 16 (3) Akta Kontrak. (Lihat Lloyds Bank v Bundy [1974] 3 Semua 757 ER pada 765.100. seperti dalam kes ini. Dia tidak pernah harus menyalahgunakan kedudukan istimewa dan keyakinan reposed dia jika dia TIDAK mengekalkan penghormatan awam dan keyakinan dalam profesion undang-undang. dan Re Craig (meninggal dunia). masing-masing dengan pelan Cadangan sub-Bahagian dilampirkan. Seksyen 16 (1) Akta Kontrak. dalam membuat salah nyataan palsu atau penipuan kepada plaintif. Pada fikiran saya. adalah pemilik berdaftar tanah sedangkan pada hakikatnya ia telah menjaringkan. 1982 2 MLJ 198 di 202 . jujur. mungkin dengan bantuan Peguamcara beliau Coelho. firma defendan. Beliau telah didorong untuk menandatangani dokumen-dokumen ini TIDAK mengetahui bahawa dia sebenarnya yang menandatangani perjanjian jual berhubungan dengan tanah dan serentak Pembelian Tiga yang tidak diluluskan sub-banyak di bumi sendiri. 1977 dan tiga perjanjian untuk Pembelian tiga sub-banyak. Peguambela dan Peguamcara mesti pada setiap masa mengekalkan etika profesional. beliau mempunyai Nasihat dan perkhidmatan Peguamcara sendiri. bagi pinjaman yang dia telah mengambil daripada defendan dan untuk mendapatkan Tanah Freed daripada pertuduhan. Jika terdapat Percanggahan kepentingan. defendan TIDAK Berimanlah truth. penoreh getah yang buta huruf lama wanitawanita India berusia 53 tahun.

$ 110 untuk almari tersebut dan jadual. (3) Perjanjian itu perlu dibatalkan. Saya kini datang kepada persoalan kerosakan yang plaintif adalah Untitled untuk Menerima yang timbul daripada salah nyata penipuan defendan (Lihat Olby Doyle v (Ironmongers) Bhd [1969] 2 QB 158 CA.. selepas Potongan beberapa berhubung dengan kerosakan basikal Anugerah. Walau apa pun ukuran ganti rugi Mahkamah terpakai. berdasarkan bukti dan Dapatan saya Fakta: (1) Dokumen yang berupa penjualan dan Perjanjian Pembelian berkaitan dengan 736 Lot Dipegang di bawah EMR 1406. defendan. merayu ganti rugi khas di dalam Penyata Tuntutan. $ 200 untuk yang mangles getah. TIDAK dilaksanakan secara bebas dan secara sukarela oleh plaintif. Walau bagaimanapun. pokok di atas tanah pada kos sebanyak $ 1. Pampasan atau pembayaran balik perlu . pokok-pokok getah mestilah lama sebagai Hasil sebulan TIDAK tinggi dari segi pendapatan.000 seekar sebelum isu hak milik individu subdivisional. Mukim Linggi. saya mendapati sebagai fakta 1 bahawa kira-kira 3 ekar pokok-pokok getah telah ditebang.As statin untuk ganti rugi am berkenaan dengan Perjanjian Januari 7. $ 150 untuk basikal. berjumlah $ 1. saya. (2) Ya. Berkenaan dengan tiga perjanjian berkaitan kepada tiga sub-lot mereka juga mestilah dibatalkan.360 Kerosakan yang disebabkan kepada. (4) plaintif TIDAK memberi pilihan.800. Oleh itu. [1969] 2 All ER 119 Plaintif TIDAK lakukan. saya itu berfikir bahawa pemberian ganti rugi terhadap defendan dalam jumlah wang sebanyak $ 10. Plaintif berkata bahawa pokok-pokok getah telah ditebang Separuh Mengenai tanah manakala defendan berkata semua yang pokok-pokok getah di atas tanah itu (kira-kira 5 ekar ½ di kawasan) telah ditebang.Page 15 Saya kini memberi Jawapan saya kepada enam isu. khas kepada plaintif seperti berikut: $ 900 bagi Dewan. (6) Utara. Beliau telah juga hilang pendapatan bulanan beliau kira-kira $ 200. semua Faktor yang berkaitan seperti pokok-pokok getah telah ditebang dan plaintif telah berhenti menoreh mesti dipertimbangkan. Tetapi sebagai Manfaat No plaintif diterima di bawahnya. berkata harga tanah adalah $ 18. hampir Mengambil kira kerosakan yang disebabkan kepada pokok-pokok getah dan kehilangan pendapatan kecil. plaintif juga berkata beliau mendapat kira-kira $ 200 sebulan menoreh pokok-pokok getah di atas tanah dan dia berhenti selepas menoreh pokok-pokok telah ditebang Itu adalah bukti yang dikemukakan untuk membuktikan kerosakan oleh plaintif defendan berkata beliau ditebang semua getah. No. saya Menilai dengan nilai anggaran yang pokok-pokok getah ditebang pada $ 2. Apabila dia memberikan keterangan mengenai ganti rugi khas. (5) Utara. tiada pihak yang telah menghasilkan apa-apa laporan penilaian di atas tanah. saya fikir tugasnya adalah untuk Anugerah ganti rugi atau pampasan yang adil dan saksama yang mungkin antara pihak-pihak yang berdasarkan bukti-bukti sebelum ia. dan mengambil perhatian bahawa dia akan mengekalkan milikan tanah itu bebas daripada bebanan di terhutang nilai semasa untuk meningkatkan meningkat pada Harga dalam Pasaran Harta Tanah. belajar Peguam bagi defendan TIDAK membantah Cabaran atau beberapa agak kecil kuantitinya item ganti rugi khas yang timbul secara langsung daripada penebangan pokok getah oleh defendan.500 bagi setiap ekar. Beliau TIDAK akan telah mengalami kerugian ini jika itu salah nyataan penipuan telah TIDAK telah dibuat Kehilangan ini hendaklah dibuat baik. barang-barang ini hartanah telah dinyatakan dalam laporan polis itu tanpa yang values. Port Dickson.000 adalah adil dan munasabah dalam hal keadaan kes ini. 1977. Kedua-dua Peguam yang dipelajari secara tidak sengaja ditinggalkan di Penyerahan Ditulis mereka untuk mengemukakan garis panduan atau prinsip Mahkamah itu seharusnya menerima pakai dalam Penilaian ganti rugi.

akan ditolak daripada akaun ganti rugi yang kena dibayar olehnya. Saya mengarahkan Pemungut Hasil Tanah Daerah. Faedah ke atas jumlah wang sebanyak $ 1. Akan ada penghakiman terhadap defendan dalam memihak kepada plaintif untuk jumlah wang sebanyak $ 1.000 akan bermula dari tarikh penghakiman untuk merealisasikan.360 akan berlangsung dari Tarikh Pemfailan terus tarikh penghakiman pada kadar 4% setahun dan selepas itu pada kadar 8% setahun setiap Sehingga merealisasikan. Faedah pada 8% setiap setahun ke atas jumlah sebanyak $ 10. dan pemindahan itu perlu dikembalikan kepada plaintif untuk pembatalan dalam tempoh satu bulan mulai hari ini. Saya memerintahkan pembatalan Perjanjian (D5) dan tiga perjanjian (D9.000 dengan kos. Oleh itu. Defendan TIDAK perlu dibenarkan untuk Manfaat daripada salah nyataan beliau. Pada masa yang sama defendan TIDAK bertanggungjawab untuk membayar ganti rugi kerana dia TIDAK membuktikan dia telah menderita di bawahnya apa-apa. Folio 61. Port Dickson.dibuat oleh beliau kepada defendan di bawah seksyen 37 Akta Relief Spesifik 1950 (Disemak 1974). Memerintahkan sewajarnya. Dalam kes ini sejak plaintif telah dibuktikan salah nyataan penipuan. . Fernandez & Co. Peguamcara: 'D'Cruz akj & Co. Bidang kuasa Mahkamah untuk memerintahkan pelaksanaan spesifik Kontrak budi bicara. D10 dan D12).500 kepada defendan. diubahsuai kepada Jilid kaveat swasta 6. pelaksanaan spesifik tidak boleh dikuatkuasakan di atas nama defendan di bawah peruntukan Seksyen 27 (b) Akta Relief Spesifik. Plaintif mesti memulangkan wang sebanyak $ 6. dan isu dokumen hakmilik EMR 1406.360 dan $ 10. Keempatempat perjanjian. yang dimasukkan oleh defendan pada 24 Januari 1981 di bawah Seksyen 417 Kanun Tanah Negara. tuntutan balas itu ditolak dengan kos.