Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
By
Nur Farhana binti Abdul Karim Nur Izzati binti Mohd Shaiful Bahri Nur Syahirah binti Mohamad Tahir LEB120075 LEB120076 LEB120077
Plaintiff contended that there was a conclude bargain by which the defendants was to sell the rights and the Plaintiff was the Purchaser in the amount of $2000. Hence, the Plaintiff had paid $200 to purchase the defendant's rights On the other hand, the defendant contended that he was prepared to sell the said right of $2500 but the Plaintiff was not prepared to meet him and therefore left the matters in the air and there was no further communication by the plaintiff to accept the offer. Defendant then, entered into a contract to sell of a same subject to another person.
ISSUE
Whether the contract entered by the parties for selling and purchase of a house built on the ground of TOL is valid. - VOID-
Govindaraju v. Krishnan (1962) 1 MLJ 334 TOL holder is allowed to rent his house built on his TOL land
2. Illegal contract under S. 24(b) Contracts Act - It is of such a nature that if permitted, it would defeat any law
Rule 41 of Regulation 40 of the Land Rules 1930 - No license for the TOL of state land shall be transferable
- The contract is an attempt to sell and purchase the defendant's rights under temporary occupation license. - Therefore, if the contract is allowed, it would defeat the provisions of relevant laws.
Opinion
The land in question is a STATE LAND.
AGREE
So, any dealings must be done according to the provisions of the Land Code and subsidiary legislation enacted under it. Rule 41 of Land Rules 1930 clearly states that no license for the temporary occupation of State land shall be transferrable. If the court allows the contract made, the provision would be defeated.