100%(1)1 out of 1 people found this document helpful
This preview shows page 1 - 2 out of 18 pages.
Malayan Law Journal Reports/1983/Volume 2/DATUK JAGINDAR SINGH & ORS v TARA RAJARATNAM - 2 MLJ 196 - 16 May 198314 pages 2 MLJ 196DATUK JAGINDAR SINGH & ORS v TARA RAJARATNAMFC KUALA LUMPURLEE HUN HOE CJ (BORNEO), SALLEH ABAS CJ (MALAYA), & ABDOOLCADER FJFEDERAL COURT CIVIL APPEAL NOS 215, 216, 291 AND 292 OF 198210 January 1983, 11 January 1983, 12 January 1983, 13 January 1983, 14 January 1983, 15 January1983, 18 January 1983, 19 January 1983, 20 January 1983, 16 May 1983Legal Profession -- Solicitor-client relationship -- Transfer of land -- Outright sale or security -- Fraud --Breach of trust -- Undue influence -- Breach of agreement -- DamagesLand Law -- Transfer of land -- Whether outright sale or security -- Fraud -- Valuation -- Evidence of expert --National Land Code, s 340(2)Contract -- Fraud -- Undue influence -- Damages -- Contracts Act, 1950, s 16 & 24In this case the respondent, the registered proprietor of land alleged that she was induced by the fraud andundue influence of the 1st and 2nd appellants to transfer the land to the 2nd appellant. The respondentclaimed that when the land was transferred it was transferred as a security and there were two undertakings,(1) that the land would not be sold to anyone for one year without the consent of the respondent (2) that theland would be transferred back to the respondent on her repaying the $220,000/- within one year. Contrary tothese undertakings the 2nd appellant some eighteen days later transferred the property to the 3rd appellant.Subsequently the land was again transferred to a land development company almost wholly owned by the1st appellant. The land was eventually subdivided and sold to the public. The appellants were advocates andsolicitors. The learned trial judge found that the appellants were guilty of fraud, breach of agreement andundue influence (  2 MLJ 127). The appellants appealed.Held:(1)in this case it was clear from the correspondence that the 1st and 2nd appellants were actingfor the respondent and there was a solicitor-client relationship between them;(2)on the evidence the learned judge was entitled to take the view that the appellants were nothonest in that the 1st and 2nd appellants never really intended to fulfil the conditions of theagreement and that all they wanted was to get the respondent to sign the transfer form so thatthey could lay their hands on the property. As regards the 3rd appellant he colluded with theother appellants to get possession of the property;(3)the learned trial judge was correct in holding that the agreement was a security agreement anddid not constitute an outright transfer of the land;(4)the learned trial judge was not wrong in holding that the transaction was unconscionable andthat the burden was on the appellants to rebut the presumption of undue influence;(5)in this case the learned trial judge exercised his discretion correctly in awarding damages forfraud and in not deducting the sums paid by the appellants in payment of overdrafts to thebanks as the sums were paid in pursuance and furtherance of the fraud.Cases referred toPage 1
You've reached the end of your free preview.
Want to read all 18 pages?
Law, Land, Misrepresentation in English law, MLJ, Datuk Jagindar Singh