Hee Cheng V Krishnan
Tang mui cheng kelly mrs kelly tang robinson v universal big food pte.
Hee cheng v krishnan. Bhd 1985 it was held that the contract was valid but becomes impossible to perform. Hee cheng v krishnan 1955 1 mlj 103. May rent out house govindaraju v. In this case the plaintiff entered into a contract with the defendant to purchase a house built by the defendant on the ground temporary occupation license.
Mydin mohamed v kunji mohidin co holder cannot sue each other mohammed said v. Krishnan 1955 mlj 103 the plaintiff and the defendant entered into an agreement for the sale and purchase of the plaintiff s house built upon a land in respect of which the defendant was the holder of a temporary occupation license. Krishnan unlawful action paruvathy v. In the case of rasiah munusamy v.
Others summons under o14 os summons o14. Hoe cheng v krishnan 1955. The defendant and the plaintiff claiming breach of promise of. Elengovan s o v krishnan a revi shanker s o k annamalai.
1997 2 clj 687. Ang toon chew v sons malaysia sdn bhd v wakil wakil diri bagi mohamed taib yusoff si mati 1998 5 mlj 481. Cf cheo lean how v fock fong looi 1985 2 mlj 440. Facts of the case plaintiff claimed for specific performance and alternatively damages for breach of a contract which was entered between plaintiff and also defendant.
Ban seng v yap pek soo 1967 2 mlj 156. In the case of hee cheng v krishnan 1955 where this case concern where the plaintiff had claimed for specific performance and alternatively damages for breach of an alleged contract that have been entered into between them to sell the defendant s right in a tol land a house built on the land. Lim tan and sons sdn. Amounts to an attempt to sell and purchase rights under temporary occupation licences and is therefore unlawful which can be refereed to the case of hee cheng v krishnan.
In the case of hee cheng v. 3 2 5 5 tenancy of house built on tol land. The court rejected the claim as the contact was an attempt to sell and purchase of the. Fatimah cannot sue license expired cannot assign to others hee cheng v.
Hee cheng case can be distinguished from the facts of cheo lean how v fock fong looi in that too sun the holder of the temporary occupation licence did not sell the dwelling house erected on state land held under temporary licence to loke seng. Krishnan 1955 it was held that the agreement was unlawful and therefore void being in contravention with the law. Krishnan no transfer of license terminated upon death pappo v. Not capable of assignment section 68 every tol shall not be capable of assignment confers personal right on the holder any transaction amounting to a transfer or assignment of any rights under the tol is null and void hee cheng v krishnan 1955 contract to purchase house built on tol land paruvathy v krishnan 1983 gave equal shares in the la nd to two other persons.
Govindaraju v krishnan 1962 1 mlj 334.