Please enable JavaScript.
Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.
MARGARET CHUA v HO SWEE KIEW & ORS [1961] 1 MLJ 173, MARGARET CHUA v…
MARGARET CHUA v HO SWEE KIEW & ORS [1961] 1 MLJ 173
MARGARET CHUA v HO SWEE KIEW & ORS [1961] 1 MLJ 173
COMMENTARY
This case touches on few maxims for instance :
Equity regards as done what ought to be done.
Equity imputes an intent to fulfill obligation
Certain dealings although not recognized or registered can still confer right
in personam
to the other party
NLC 206(3)
Enables parties to exercise contractual rights
Equitable lease
MUHAMMAD NIVIN BIN ANUAR 1810235
AHMAD RUSYDI BIN HAJI MOHD SALLEH 1811865
INTRODUCTION
This case relates to an area where land law and equity law overlaps and this case also marks the precedent where it proves certain agreement although not enforceable by law can still be made as an instrument to claim for damages.
SUMMARY OF FACTS
All material times the appellant was the registered proprietor of two pieces of land in Alor Star
Business of a coffee shop on the appellant's land
The appellant was apparently minded to build two shophouses on her land
22nd December, 1951, she entered into an agreement with the respondents
.
All payments by the present respondents under the agreement of 22nd December, 1951, had been made
Buildings had been completed and on 1st March, 1953
Respondents went into occupation of the whole of the premises except the ground floor of the shop house erected on Lot No: 7
Regularly paying monthly sums of $180 to the appellant
regarded as paying rent at the rate of $280 per month and deducting from that sum installments of $100 a month
AGREEMENT
respondents who was called ' the
Lenders
"
.
appellant, who was called "the
Borrower
"
.
the registered owner of the land and intended to erect two shophouses upon it
.
30k - to grant to them a lease
of the shophouse standing on Lot No. 8 and the first Floor of the Shophouse standing on Lot No. 7
.
$12,000 had been paid on the execution of the agreement
$9,000 on the date of completion of the first floors
$9,000 on the completion of the roofing of the shophouses
.
$30,000 by three hundred monthly
instalments of $100 each without interest = 25 years
.
$280 per calendar month.
Borrower
grant the lease
not to sell or otherwise dispose of the demised premises or any part thereof
without first informing and granting the lenders the
option to purchase the same at such price and upon such terms and conditions as shall be mutually agreed on"
Lender
regarding the payment of rent,
assessment, rates, taxes
electricity and water supplies and regarding repairs and access
CRISIS
A registrable lease was not executed and the appellant further demanded an increased rent.
the dispute went on for 6 years and the respondent had incurred cost of $36,000
same time the appellant's solicitor wrote a letter to the respondents informing them that his client wished to sell the premises
offered a price of $90,000.
within three days his client would dispose of the premises as she thought fit
23rd December, 1959, the appellant executed a registrable transfer in respect of the land comprised in Surat Putus No: 61830
Teoh Kim Im for a consideration of $45,000 and the following day, 24th December, 1959, the purchaser gave the respondents notice to quit
The respondents had already taken proceedings to obtain an injunction preventing the sale of either of the two pieces of land
JUDGEMENT
Court of Appeal
Requirements under Kedah Land Enactment
-Lease must be in accordance with the provisions of the enactment
-Lease more than 1 year must be in statutory form and presented for registration with issue document of title
-The statutory form must be in malay language written in jawi script
Parker v Taswell 2 De G & J 559
A lease was held void by reason the instrument was not being under seal but it was treated as an agreement for a lease and specific performance was granted
Zimbler v Abrahams [1903] 1 KB 577
“a document which, though it may have been intended to operate as a demise, may still be looked upon as an agreement for a lease capable of specific performance”
Alagappa Cherty v Ng Guan Yin 5 FMSLR 236
Transactions that was not being recognised by the law relating to the registration of title can operate as a contract and may rise to order of specific performance against the proprietor of the land
In the present case,
there is a written contract which is binding,
and the appellant has
failed to comply with it
, therefore the appellant was in
breach of contract
.
Trial court
It was a binding contract
(loan given to the appellant by the respondent obliging the appellant to grant the respondent a lease of land for 25 years)
The court granted remedy of $21,900 for the unpaid balance of the debt and damages for the breach of contract
ISSUES
Whether the agreement of 22 december 1951 that was intended to be a lease was null and void by reason of non-compliance with the Kedah Land Enactment
CONCLUSION
In conclusion, the judgement was correct to dismiss the appeal by granting the remedies and damages
The judgement also consistent with the the provisions in the National Land Code and the equity legal maxim