registered on July 22, 1975. On July 31, 1975 the second appellant executed a transfer of the land in favourof the third appellant, Arul Chandran, an advocate and solicitor in Singapore, purportedly in consideration ofthe sum of $220,000, but no consideration in fact passed.In the meantime, the second appellant had obtained from Dr. Das a cheque dated March 25, 1975 for thesum of $149,520 drawn on the Moscow Narodny Bank, which was dishonoured upon presentation. Thesecond appellant sued Dr. Das upon it in the High Court of Singapore, and obtained judgment dated May 5,1975. The judgment was registered in Johore and execution proceedings were threatened but not in theevent taken.On January 28, 1976 the third appellant made application for sub-division of the Kulai land with a view todevelopment, and on March 4, 1976 Suppiah & Singh, on his behalf, gave the respondent notice to quit. Thiswas followed up by an action for possession, in which judgment was given in the third appellant's favour onAugust 9, 1976. An application by the respondent for a stay of execution was dismissed and the respondentvacated the land on September 20, 1976. In January 1977 the third appellant's application for subdivisionwas approved, and in May 1978 he transferred the land to Jet Age Construction Co., a company controlledby the first appellant. The transfer purported to be in consideration of the price of $361,114, but this was notpaid, being allowed to stand in the books of the company as a debt due by it. Eventually the land wassub-divided into 70 lots, all of which were transferred to various purchasers. Devan died on May 10, 1981.The present action was commenced by the respondent on August 30, 1979, after earlier proceedings forPage 5
similar relief had been struck out as not disclosing a reasonable cause of action. The trial before AbdulRazak J. started on August 12, 1981 and continued with interruptions until November, 1, 1981. There was amarked conflict of evidence between the respondent on the one hand and the first and second appellants onthe other hand as to what was said in the course of the meeting at the respondent's house on March 30,1974. The learned trial judge accepted the respondent as a witness of truth and he rejected the evidence ofthe first and second appellants in all material respects.The respondent's account of the events of March 30, 1974, as recorded in the judge's notes, was as follows:"On March 30, 1974 there were three visitors to my house. Deceased was present. He invited them. Now I know theywere the 1st defendant, the 2nd defendant and another Indian. Shown P 30. Deceased took them to the study. Heintroduced me to them and then I knew they were lawyers. The 2nd defendant brought out certain documents. He gaveme P 30 - 31. At the time I did not see the letter of March 14, 1974 as mentioned in P 30. I had no idea of the amountof the overdraft at that time, not even an approximate amount. I have heard before March 30 that Dr. Das was indebtedto Hongkong & Shanghai Bank in the sum of $110,000/-. Before that date I had learnt that the 1st defendant had to paythe Hongkong & Shanghai Bank about $110,000/-. I had learnt before the date that the 2nd defendant was to pay the
You've reached the end of your free preview.
Want to read all 12 pages?
Law, Undue influence, appellant, Abdul Razak J., Dr. Das